Pseudoscience

[DC]

Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status

example:

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf)




http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/hahahaha.gif

[twinstead]

You can't just SAY stuff, or accuse a paper of being pseudoscience without actually SHOWING why you think so, right? As a matter of fact, pseudoscience actually pretty much describes every word you've typed on this forum, DC, don't you agree?

[Unsecured Coins]

You can't just SAY stuff, or accuse a paper of being pseudoscience without actually SHOWING why you think so, right? As a matter of fact, pseudoscience actually pretty much describes every word you've typed on this forum, DC, don't you agree?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/hahahaha.gif

[DC]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/hahahaha.gif

:D

but not really :)

[DC]

You can't just SAY stuff, or accuse a paper of being pseudoscience without actually SHOWING why you think so, right? As a matter of fact, pseudoscience actually pretty much describes every word you've typed on this forum, DC, don't you agree?

Did you read and understand the paper?

[Unsecured Coins]

:D

but not really :)

ya rly

[DC]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/hahahaha.gif

btw, am i the guy that try's to score and shoots towards the goal, but fail to score, indtead just hit the goaly (JREF) in the face?

[Unsecured Coins]

As I was quoting Twinstead's reply to you, it is accepted and acknowledged that you were on the business end of the soccer ball.

[fullflavormenthol]

Did you read and understand the paper?
DC, what he is getting at is that you actually have to show your work. You need to tell us where specifically or give an example from the work that is pseudoscientific in its methods.

That is all that is being said. It would be like me starting a thread called "Fallacy" and then linking to your first post without ever explaining why it is a fallacy. (BTW; this is merely an illustration.)

[DC]

As I was quoting Twinstead's reply to you, it is accepted and acknowledged that you were on the business end of the soccer ball.

i am the grass?

[Unsecured Coins]

no, but thanks for letting everyone know what motivates your beliefs

[DC]

DC, what he is getting at is that you actually have to show your work. You need to tell us where specifically or give an example from the work that is pseudoscientific in its methods.

That is all that is being said. It would be like me starting a thread called "Fallacy" and then linking to your first post without ever explaining why it is a fallacy. (BTW; this is merely an illustration.)

it has been showed in another topic, in layman terms.

[DC]

no, but thanks for letting everyone know what motivates your beliefs

do you belive in the OP linked to paper?

[applecorped]

Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status

example:

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf)

Example: Everything troothers say, write, publish.

Troothers are now debunking themselves, LOL! Every time I think troothers can't dig themselves a deeper hole they get a bigger shovel and keep on going. Better learn Chinese.

[applecorped]

btw, am i the guy that try's to score and shoots towards the goal, but fail to score, indtead just hit the goaly (JREF) in the face?

So, that is what you are really about. You admit you never score (not jokes, it's obvious) and you are just here to engage JREFers in arguments just for the fun of it. Oh well, I guess the deaths of 3000 people is funny to you.

[DC]

Example: Everything troothers say, write, publish.

Troothers are now debunking themselves, LOL! Every time I think troothers can't dig themselves a deeper hole they get a bigger shovel and keep on going. Better learn Chinese.

uuuhh nice digging
have funn in the magma

[DC]

So, that is what you are really about. You admit you never score (not jokes, it's obvious) and you are just here to engage JREFers in arguments just for the fun of it. Oh well, I guess the deaths of 3000 people is funny to you.

i like taking cheap shots at "ivory towers"

[gtc]

Post deleted. I wrote a serious reply pointing out the problems with the OP but I will not be part of a thread that is using the death and destruction that occurred on that day to score some cheap points against either the members of this forum or those academics who disagree with the idiotic notion that the US government conspired to bring about the events of that day.

You clearly have nothing worth reading and I fully expect this thread to end up in AAH.

[Myriad]

do you belive in the OP linked to paper?


DC, I think the point that the above posts were trying to get at is that your OP only expresses your opinion about a paper.

If this is all you wanted to accomplish, to inform us about what your opinion is, then there's no issue. You accomplished that.

However, if you intended your opinion to carry any persuasive weight, you have not succeeded because you have presented no rationale for thinking that your opinion might be correct. (A vague reference to another thread is not sufficient, and appears more likely to be interpreted as expressing contempt for your audience on both sides of the issue.)

If such a rationale supporting your OP claim exists, you should be able to summarize it in a few sentences. If it's not worth your time to do so, then what does that say about how much weight other people should put on your expressed opinions?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[peteweaver]

Bad example.

Try again.

[applecorped]

That's the first truthful thing you have said here. The imperative word being cheap, ie, dishonest, disingenuous, fraudulent, etc. BTW - Having Ghandi for an avatar is beyond insulting to his legacy.

[DC]

This post:



And this response:



Tell me that you either suffer from a severe lack of critical thinking skills or you are 'trolling'*.

You have made a claim that the paper is pseudoscientific. If you can not provide evidence that this is the case then we have no reason to believe your claim and every reason to doubt you.


*No, I haven't ruled out the idea that you are both trolling and lacking in critical thinking skills.

that it is a pseudoschientific paper is just a simplification, an ssumption.
you have to prove that assumption wrong.

or not?

wich way around is it?

[DGM]

I think he's trying to say that "assumptions" and "simplifications" in a mathematical model is some how pseudoscience. I'm not sure why he thinks this though.

[DC]

That's the first truthful thing you have said here. The imperative word being cheap, ie, dishonest, disingenuous, fraudulent, etc. BTW - Having Ghandi for an avatar is beyond insulting to his legacy.

and what about The Beatles?

[DC]

I think he's trying to say that "assumptions" and "simplifications" in a mathematical model is some how pseudoscience. I'm not sure why he thinks this though.

in no way, i think when you can prove them correct, or when they indeed reflect reality, are calculated, it is ok.

but when they contradict reality, and/or are simplifications towards your theory.
you gotta bring up some very good reasons, explenations, calculations etc,to do so.

[applecorped]

I'll let John Lennon speak for himself:

Im sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
Ive had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of hope
Money for dope
Money for rope

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of soap
Money for dope
Money for rope

Im sick to death of seeing things
From tight-lipped, condescending, mamas little chauvinists
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth now

Ive had enough of watching scenes
Of schizophrenic, ego-centric, paranoiac, prima-donnas
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth

[applecorped]

DC, please twist that song to your own agenda, I know you will.

[peteweaver]

Bazant's paper is not pseudo science, it is a THESIS, based upon known scientific factors like youngs (elastic) modulus, bending moments, thermal properties of steel, and that the structure had been initially damaged by plane strikes.

His paper has since been proven correct.
..............................................
If you want pseudo science, start hunting for thermite 'that can burn horizontally through core columns'.

[DC]

DC, please twist that song to your own agenda, I know you will.

oh no I dont touch those ppls words :)

i have my own words,
but i like your avatar.
remind the ppl with pictures to ppl that are almost beeing forgotten/unheard

[DC]

Bazant's paper is not pseudo science, it is a THESIS, based upon known scientific factors like youngs (elastic) modulus, bending moments, thermal properties of steel, and that the structure had been initially damaged by plane strikes.

His paper has since been proven correct.
..............................................
If you want pseudo science, start hunting for thermite 'that can burn horizontally through core columns'.

when your "thesis" includes an impact of 2 parts of one structure, what is your scientific explenation to ABUSE Young's Modulus, by ONLY using it on ONE side and only using it in the Parts you want it to be used.

[T.A.M.]

You either have to (A) state that the paper, IN YOUR OPINION, is pseudoscience, and there for we can take it for what that opinion is worth, or (B) state that the paper is pseudoscience, and THEN BACK IT UP.

So which is it DC, is the OP just an opinion (unfounded from what I see) or are you making a statement which you intend on backing up?

TAM:)

[applecorped]

It's okay that you're being forgotten and unheard, your posts are still fun though.

[DC]

You either have to (A) state that the paper, IN YOUR OPINION, is pseudoscience, and there for we can take it for what that opinion is worth, or (B) state that the paper is pseudoscience, and THEN BACK IT UP.

So which is it DC, is the OP just an opinion (unfounded from what I see) or are you making a statement which you intend on backing up?

TAM:)

do you want to argue that this paper is NOT pseudoscience?

[16.5]

oh no I dont touch those ppls words :)

i have my own words,
but i like your avatar.
remind the ppl with pictures to ppl that are almost beeing forgotten/unheard

"ppl"? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Cripes, if you are too lazy to type out what you mean, please do not post.

Next your opening post is ludicrous, what you are trying to suggest is that Bazant's paper is psuedoscience, yet you manage to say that the firmly established scientific principles upon which they rely are psuedoscience, which makes you completely incompetent.

Come on. People have cut you enough slack on this site for you to stop wasting our time.

[boloboffin]

The soccer ball bounces off the goalie's face into the goal.

[DC]

It's okay that you're being forgotten and unheard, your posts are still fun though.

oh its ok to forget me, most dont even notice me :)

but refreshing "visual bridges" to ppl we shall not forget is a nice thing :)

[DC]

The soccer ball bounces off the goalie's face into the goal.

the i should hase used the animated picture in the OP

[Myriad]

Still no rationale.

Which means, Dictator Cheney's only point is to inform us that it's his opinion that Bazant and Zhou 2002 is pseudoscientific.

I think we can all agree that we're all now aware that that is, indeed, his opinion.

So, thread done, right?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Good Lt]

the i should hase used the animated picture in the OP

Just show us the pseudo-science you proclaimed is rampant - with your specific refutations and calculations that support your assertions - or quit posting here.

[DarkMagician]

do you want to argue that this paper is NOT pseudoscience?

No, you don't get it. You have to show us why it is pseudoscience.

I mean, I could pick up a rock and say that it shoos tigers off. It is not up to everyone else to prove that it doesn't work. It is up to me to prove that it works.

Is that clear enough?

[fullflavormenthol]

DC> Give an example why it is pseudoscience. Give examples. Don't use this thread to bump your other thread.

[Blender Head]

42 posts and no evidence as two why that paper is pseudoscience.

How typical.

[DC]

No, you don't get it. You have to show us why it is pseudoscience.

I mean, I could pick up a rock and say that it shoos tigers off. It is not up to everyone else to prove that it doesn't work. It is up to me to prove that it works.

Is that clear enough?

when i would claim, a "spring" like body, will behave like a solid body when i drop it on a "spring" like body, wich contradicts, common knowledge and teached knowledge. as a scientist, would i have to backup that claim? prove it in experiments, or calculations ?

[DC]

42 posts and no evidence as two why that paper is pseudoscience.

How typical.

6 pages of pseudoscience and no evidence why they assume

a smaller "spring" dropped on a bigger "spring",
will make the smaller "spring" to behave like a solid.

in those 6 pages of pseudoscience drivel they even attempt to prove, that the smaller "spring" will totaly destroy the bigger "spring" and then the smaller "dpring" will destroy itself.

what more evidence do you really need to see that the said paper is speudoscience.

[beachnut]

I have a new tool to spot real enigneering work and scientific study!

Whatever DC says is Pseudoscience, is really engineering and stuff he does not understand.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/hahahaha.gif

[DC]

DC, please twist that song to your own agenda, I know you will.

and why would you think it needs to be twisted to fit my agenda, i could simply repost it.......

[DC]

I have a new tool to spot real enigneering work and scientific study!

Whatever DC says is Pseudoscience, is really engineering and stuff he does not understand.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/hahahaha.gif

what i really dont fully understand.

where exactly are the 3M rubber clue shock dampeners in the trusses core connections?

i know them in the trusses outer tube conncetions, but the ones you pointed me to.

btw, could you ever admit to be wrong?

[Blender Head]

6 pages of pseudoscience and no evidence why they assume

a smaller "spring" dropped on a bigger "spring",
will make the smaller "spring" to behave like a solid.

in those 6 pages of pseudoscience drivel they even attempt to prove, that the smaller "spring" will totaly destroy the bigger "spring" and then the smaller "dpring" will destroy itself.

what more evidence do you really need to see that the said paper is speudoscience.

I looked at that "pseudoscience" and found no mentions of dprings.

[T.A.M.]

do you want to argue that this paper is NOT pseudoscience?

No, you have made the allegation that a scientific paper, written by a well known, well published scientist, in a peer reviewed journal, is pseudoscience, therefore it is up to you to prove your case...or simply call it opinion.

TAM:)

[DC]

No, you have made the allegation that a scientific paper, written by a well known, well published scientist, in a peer reviewed journal, is pseudoscience, therefore it is up to you to prove your case...or simply call it opinion.

TAM:)

For a short time after the vertical impact of the upper part, but
after the elastic wave generated by the vertical impact has propagated
to the ground, the lower part of the structure can be approximately
considered to act as an elastic spring [Fig. 2 (a)].
What is its stiffness C? It can vary greatly with the distribution of
the impact forces among the framed tube columns, between these
columns and those in the core, and between the columns and the
trusses supporting concrete floor slabs.

For our purpose, we may assume that all the impact forces go
into the columns and are distributed among them equally. Unlikely
though such a distribution may be, it is nevertheless the
most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the
building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest. If the
building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact
forces, it would fail under any other distribution. According to
this hypothesis, one may estimate that C= ca. 71 GN/m (due to unavailability
of precise data, an approximate design of column
cross sections had to be carried out for this purpose!).
The downward displacement from the initial equilibrium position
to the point of maximum deflection of the lower part ~considered
to behave elastically! is h+(P/C) where P = maximum
force applied by the upper part on the lower part and h = height of
critical floor columns (height of the initial fall of the upper part!
'3.7 m.

C represents the "springiness" as a energy "consumer" so they seem to accept the fact, that a such huge steel structure has a sort "springiness" that will "absorb" or "consume" energy.

but the falling "object" in that paper has also a "springiness" and will also "absorb" or "consume" energy. but they just left out that.

they give no reasson or calculations what would justify that "manipulation"

and also do they not show the details to:
C= ca. 71 GN/m (due to unavailability
of precise data, an approximate design of column
cross sections had to be carried out for this purpose!).

[DC]

I looked at that "pseudoscience" and found no mentions of dprings.

ORLY?

For a short time after the vertical impact of the upper part, but
after the elastic wave generated by the vertical impact has propagated
to the ground, the lower part of the structure can be approximately
considered to act as an elastic spring [Fig. 2(a)].

[ElMondoHummus]

pseu·do·sci·ence

noun. A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation.
An activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptionsMore that mere assertion is required. It would help to demonstrate how Bazant et. al. is 1. Without scientific foundation, or 2. Based on fallacious assumptions. Qualitative oversimplifications of quantitative arguments is poor criticism, and in fact baseless when the oversimplification only encompasses a portion of the argument being critiqued.

It's somewhat ironic that the critique of Bazant et. al's argument as pseudoscience is itself pseudoscience, as it's based on fallacious assumptions.

------

So, what is pseudoscience?

Pseudoscience is working from a conclusion and misrepresenting evidence - say, for example, iron rich spherules - as indicating one suspicious thing when in fact, a range of unsuspicous explanations not only exist, but are not contradicted by other known facts of the event.

Pseudoscience is trying to use a paper with pages of spectrometric information to prove the existence of a compound, when the pages of spectrometry does not address anything about the conditions the discovered particles were created under. As a related concept, pseudoscience is accepting handwave assertions as being supported by the spectrometry presented when in fact, the assertions are not related or even addressed by the spectrometry.

Pseudoscience is accepting that an incendiary was at Ground Zero in contradiction to the weight of the evidence.

Another great definition of pseudoscience is:

"A system of theories (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theories) or assertions about the natural world that claim or appear to be scientific but that, in fact, are not. For example, astronomy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astronomy) is a science, but astrology (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astrology) is generally viewed as a pseudoscience."

Against that definition, the assertions made by Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, David Gage, etc. are pseudoscience. Threads in this forum are a testiment to that.

------

And what is not pseudoscience, but still fallacious?

Arguing that simplified calculations are invalid without demonstrating why they're invalid.
Dodging issues of structural performance raised (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101791) in (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102226) other (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102407) threads (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102982) like this one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108273).

[T.A.M.]

DC:

you do realize (god I hope) that simplification of a system for the purposes of calculating a best case scenario is quite common, right?

So while you may say that they left out a component that you feel is important (which may or may not be true) you still have not proven it is PSEUDOscience.

Carry on.

TAM:)

[ElMondoHummus]

C represents the "springiness" as a energy "consumer" so they seem to accept the fact, that a such huge steel structure has a sort "springiness" that will "absorb" or "consume" energy.

but the falling "object" in that paper has also a "springiness" and will also "absorb" or "consume" energy. but they just left out that.

Others here have pointed out that Bazant et. al. argued that "the elastically calculated forces in columns caused by the vertical impact of the upper part must have exceeded the load capacity of the lower part by at least an order of magnitude." Can physicists or engineers (or you, Architect :D) comment as to whether the "springiness" in question is significant in the face of such an overwhelming force?

And DC: Can you demonstrate quantitatively that such "springiness" of the falling object is significant in the system being described?

[scissorhands]

but the falling "object" in that paper has also a "springiness" and will also "absorb" or "consume" energy. but they just left out that.

Probably because it is irrelevant DC?
If you accept that their initial calculation of the "elasticity" of the lower structure and its limits then the upper portions "elasticity" is irrelevant.
Gravity tends to point downwards.

[DC]

DC:

you do realize (god I hope) that simplification of a system for the purposes of calculating a best case scenario is quite common, right?

So while you may say that they left out a component that you feel is important (which may or may not be true) you still have not proven it is PSEUDOscience.

Carry on.

TAM:)

you cannot use an established fact in only the parts of the calculations you want it. this is not simplification, this is manipulation. fraudelent calculating.
using half truth's.

[DC]

Probably because it is irrelevant DC?
If you accept that their initial calculation of the "elasticity" of the lower structure and its limits then the upper portions "elasticity" is irrelevant.
Gravity tends to point downwards.

why would it be irrelevant pls?

and why whould i accept theyr initial estimation of C?
they only presented me theyr "result"

one may estimate that C= ca. 71 GN/m

[T.A.M.]

sure you can.

If I want to prove that a car dropped on the roof of your house is capable of coming through the roof, do I have to calculate the weight of the gas inside the tank?

Well only if the weight of that gas is significant to the overall outcome. Chances are, a car with an empty tank will do just as much damage as one with an empty tank...so we do not need to add in the weight of the gas.

Do you get my drift? You have to prove to me that the factor you have said they did not include is significant enough to have changed the outcome.

TAM:)

[scissorhands]

Does the elasticity of a falling object effect the force it produces when impacting a lower object?
:)
Are you expecting it to bounce back into position?

[DC]

Others here have pointed out that Bazant et. al. argued that "the elastically calculated forces in columns caused by the vertical impact of the upper part must have exceeded the load capacity of the lower part by at least an order of magnitude." Can physicists or engineers (or you, Architect :D) comment as to whether the "springiness" in question is significant in the face of such an overwhelming force?

And DC: Can you demonstrate quantitatively that such "springiness" of the falling object is significant in the system being described?

i will try to do it very simplified. by using an example.

the tower is sort of a gigantic "Spring"
it is not designed as a spring, it will no where come near the abilitly of a real spring in that dimensions.
most steel is behaving like a "spring" in alot shapes other than just the usual springs.

for the lower part they also use the example "spring"

but for the upper part, they seems to use a block of something, not a "spring"

i would take a huge "spring" cutt it appart and let fall the 2 on eachother.
they take a huge "spring" cutt it apart and let something diffrent wallf on the lower part of the "spring"

and that is wrong, because the upper falling part, was actually something very very similar to the lower part of the tower. and in no way so significatn diffrent like it is in this pseudoscientific paper.

[Stellafane]

btw, am i the guy that try's to score and shoots towards the goal, but fail to score, indtead just hit the goaly (JREF) in the face?

No, you're the guy that tries to score, completely misses the ball, and falls flat on his face in a big pile of dog feces. Then you lift your head up and notice that it's all a hallucination, and neither the ball nor the goal really exists. Meanwhile, those of us sitting in the stands are laughing our asses off.

[DC]

Does the elasticity of a falling object effect the force it produces when impacting a lower object?
:)
Are you expecting it to bounce back into position?

when you let fall an object on a spring, will it bounce back to the "equilibruim" position?

[ElMondoHummus]

i will try to do it very simplified. by using an example.

the tower is sort of a gigantic "Spring"
it is not designed as a spring, it will no where come near the abilitly of a real spring in that dimensions.
most steel is behaving like a "spring" in alot shapes other than just the usual springs.

for the lower part they also use the example "spring"

but for the upper part, they seems to use a block of something, not a "spring"

i would take a huge "spring" cutt it appart and let fall the 2 on eachother.
they take a huge "spring" cutt it apart and let something diffrent wallf on the lower part of the "spring"

and that is wrong, because the upper falling part, was actually something very very similar to the lower part of the tower. and in no way so significatn diffrent like it is in this pseudoscientific paper.

Thank you for the response. In the interests of courtesy, I ask that you understand that my next comment is not meant to be ungracious, but rather is an extension of the conversation:

Again, I see a qualitative assertion being made in place of a quantitative assessment. You say that the upper and lower sections are "in no way so significant different", but that's an assertion built on your spring analogy, not an assessment built on the actual values inherent in the towers. So once again, can you provide a quantitative argument that the "springiness" is indeed significant?

[scissorhands]

when you let fall an object on a spring, will it bounce back to the "equilibruim" position?

You are now talking about the lower portion of the towers and their "elasticity".
I was discussing the relevance of the "elasticity" of the falling object.
Try to keep on track.

[DC]

Thank you for the response. In the interests of courtesy, I ask that you understand that my next comment is not meant to be ungracious, but rather is an extension of the conversation:

Again, I see a qualitative assertion being made in place of a quantitative assessment. You say that the upper and lower sections are "in no way so significant different", but that's an assertion built on your spring analogy, not an assessment built on the actual values inherent in the towers. So once again, can you provide a quantitative argument that the "springiness" is indeed significant?

that's an assertion built on the fact that the WTC tower was one "object" a huge gigantic, impressive, construction made out of millions of "parts".
when you cut it in 2 you have 2 relativel similar "objects", you will not have one "spring" and a "wood block", you will have 2 "springs"
it has nothing to do with the analogy, its just the fact that the upper part did not change from springiness to a far more solid object in reality, wile we got told in the paper.

[DC]

You are now talking about the lower portion of the towers and their "elasticity".
I was discussing the relevance of the "elasticity" of the falling object.
Try to keep on track.

when you drop spring on solid nonspringy ground, will it just impact the ground and not bounce off?

[DC]

i do not want to say, that the springiness or the fact , that the "falling part" was not that strong as the lower part would for sure arrest collapse.

and reality in "slow motion" demonstrates that very impressive.

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=otHZwjElXwQ

[scissorhands]

And the springiness of the upper portion is completely irrelevant.
Unless the tower was upside down......
My god, its hard to grasp just how bizarre twoofworld physics really is.

[DC]

And the springiness of the upper portion is completely irrelevant.
Unless the tower was upside down......
My god, its hard to grasp just how bizarre twoofworld physics really is.

are you sure you do understand physics?

[DarkMagician]

i will try to do it very simplified. by using an example.

the tower is sort of a gigantic "Spring"
it is not designed as a spring, it will no where come near the abilitly of a real spring in that dimensions.
most steel is behaving like a "spring" in alot shapes other than just the usual springs.

for the lower part they also use the example "spring"

but for the upper part, they seems to use a block of something, not a "spring"

i would take a huge "spring" cutt it appart and let fall the 2 on eachother.
they take a huge "spring" cutt it apart and let something diffrent wallf on the lower part of the "spring"

and that is wrong, because the upper falling part, was actually something very very similar to the lower part of the tower. and in no way so significatn diffrent like it is in this pseudoscientific paper.

The thing is that the top part doesn't have something falling on it, like the bottom part has. Thus, it doesn't need to be taken as a spring.

Even if the top part was considered a spring, it'd still have to be considered as a pretty dang heavy spring.

Or is it that you're trying to extend the analogy of the "spring" into the long metal spirally things, to such an extent that it doesn't describe the situation at all and is ultimately useless, in a shallow effort to discredit the work? That's my suspicion, but if you're willing to defend yourself...

[ElMondoHummus]

that's an assertion built on the fact that the WTC tower was one "object" a huge gigantic, impressive, construction made out of millions of "parts".
when you cut it in 2 you have 2 relativel similar "objects", you will not have one "spring" and a "wood block", you will have 2 "springs"
it has nothing to do with the analogy, its just the fact that the upper part did not change from springiness to a far more solid object in reality, wile we got told in the paper.

*Sigh*

Once again, a qualitative answer is given. Please, sir, demonstrate numerically where the "springiness" of the upper section is significant i.e. is large enough to have an effect reducing the forces on the lower section. Or numerically demonstrate the difference between treating the upper section as a "solid object" vs. the difference between your system that takes the upper sections "springiness" into consideration, so we can judge whether the difference is indeed significant.

[DC]

No, you're the guy that tries to score, completely misses the ball, and falls flat on his face in a big pile of dog feces. Then you lift your head up and notice that it's all a hallucination, and neither the ball nor the goal really exists. Meanwhile, those of us sitting in the stands are laughing our asses off.

how often do you sit in the stands and watch things that dont really exist according to you?

[DC]

The thing is that the top part doesn't have something falling on it, like the bottom part has. Thus, it doesn't need to be taken as a spring.

Even if the top part was considered a spring, it'd still have to be considered as a pretty dang heavy spring.

Or is it that you're trying to extend the analogy of the "spring" into the long metal spirally things, to such an extent that it doesn't describe the situation at all and is ultimately useless, in a shallow effort to discredit the work? That's my suspicion, but if you're willing to defend yourself...

the top part has the lower part "impacting" on it from under it, it was a static structure in the way of the direction of its motion.

when you drop a ball on a ball, both balls will deform in diffrent rations. and thus behave "springlike" both of them.

[Stellafane]

how often do you sit in the stands and watch things that dont really exist according to you?

Oh, you exist, for sure. That's who I'm laughing at, you running around chasing your imaginary little ball. And what's really funny is that you're managing to lose a game that no one else is even playing.

[DC]

*Sigh*

Once again, a qualitative answer is given. Please, sir, demonstrate numerically where the "springiness" of the upper section is significant i.e. is large enough to have an effect reducing the forces on the lower section. Or numerically demonstrate the difference between treating the upper section as a "solid object" vs. the difference between your system that takes the upper sections "springiness" into consideration, so we can judge whether the difference is indeed significant.

when said paper would be a scientific paper, woudnt there be calculations in said paper that does show that they can leave out CFalling Part, i cant find anything.

[DC]

Oh, you exist, for sure. That's who I'm laughing at, you running around chasing your imaginary little ball. And what's really funny is that you're managing to lose a game that no one else is even playing.

arent you right now playing said "game" ?

[Par]

arent you right now playing said "game" ?


No.

[Stellafane]

arent you right now playing said "game" ?

Nah, I'm just watching it. I really don't take you guys seriously enough anymore to actually engage you in debate. I guess I just admitted to rather blatant trolling, and if so my bad. But then again, I take my role as Village Idiot very seriously, making sure threads don't get too hot or heavy.

The fact is, you actually do seem like a nice guy with a sense of humor and some intelligence, so I hope you'll indulge my heckling from the audience. If it's too bothersome just ignore me; most people do.

[DC]

Nah, I'm just watching it. I really don't take you guys seriously enough anymore to actually engage you in debate. I guess I just admitted to rather blatant trolling, and if so my bad. But then again, I take my role as Village Idiot very seriously, making sure threads don't get too hot or heavy.

The fact is, you actually do seem like a nice guy with a sense of humor and some intelligence, so I hope you'll indulge my heckling from the audience. If it's too bothersome just ignore me; most people do.

i will not ignore you :) you also seem to be a nice guy. and i indeed do like humor alot, and i think the ability to laugh about oneself, is one of the highest forms of humor. and calling yourself "Village Idiot" nicely demonstrates that high form of humor. and i do doubt that a real "Village Idiot" would have that ability :)

and laughing is a healthy thing, the TM should get money for making alot JREFers a little bit more healthy ;)

[ElMondoHummus]

when said paper would be a scientific paper, woudnt there be calculations in said paper that does show that they can leave out CFalling Part, i cant find anything.


... the elastically calculated forces in columns caused by the vertical impact of the upper part must have exceeded the load capacity of the lower part by at least an order of magnitude.

(Source: Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf), page 3)

They're saying that the overload factor is overwhelming. The calculation demonstrating this preceded the quote.

If you have engineering training, then you have me at a disadvantage, as I do not. Therefore, if you have such, you should use such training to your advantage. Bazant and Zhou provide two calculations on that page. They say that the forces involved in the collapse overwhelms the lower section's load capacity "by at least an order of magnitude". Therefore, if your assertion is correct, and there's indeed enough springiness to arrest the collapse, then the "springiness" of the upper section offsets/absorbs that energy by that same order of magnitude. Here's where you can defeat me. Provide calculations that said "springiness" factor indeed offsets the energy of the top section collapsing.

You can really beat up on me here, because I do not have the physics, engineering, or structural design training or experience that posters like R. Mackey, Newton's Bit, Architect, Dave Rogers, rwguinn, etc. have to understand the answer. But you'll have at least provided an answer, you'll have proven you're not merely trying to handwave past the energy argument, and you also provide some substance to the argument that the afore mentioned posters can use to evaluate the merits of your argument with.

So please, can you provide a quantitative version of your argument?

ETA: Oh, speaking of the physics, engineering, and structural design trained folks in this forum: Please feel free to jump in and show if and where I'm making any mistakes in my summaries of the arguments floating around in this thread.

[twinstead]

So what we have here is somebody who has no expertise at ALL in ANY relevant field of study proclaiming that a peer-reviewed paper is 'pseudoscience'.

Hmmm. Whom to believe. Whom to believe...

[A W Smith]

Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status

example:

http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=1451094

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/hahahaha.gif

[DC]

(Source: Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf), page 3)

They're saying that the overload factor is overwhelming. The calculation demonstrating this preceded the quote.

If you have engineering training, then you have me at a disadvantage, as I do not. Therefore, if you have such, you should use such training to your advantage. Bazant and Zhou provide two calculations on that page. They say that the forces involved in the collapse overwhelms the lower section's load capacity "by at least an order of magnitude". Therefore, if your assertion is correct, and there's indeed enough springiness to arrest the collapse, then the "springiness" of the upper section offsets/absorbs that energy by that same order of magnitude. Here's where you can defeat me. Provide calculations that said "springiness" factor indeed offsets the energy of the top section collapsing.

You can really beat up on me here, because I do not have the physics, engineering, or structural design training or experience that posters like R. Mackey, Newton's Bit, Architect, Dave Rogers, rwguinn, etc. have to understand the answer. But you'll have at least provided an answer, you'll have proven you're not merely trying to handwave past the energy argument, and you also provide some substance to the argument that the afore mentioned posters can use to evaluate the merits of your argument with.

So please, can you provide a quantitative version of your argument?

ETA: Oh, speaking of the physics, engineering, and structural design trained folks in this forum: Please feel free to jump in and show if and where I'm making any mistakes in my summaries of the arguments floating around in this thread.

i am not an engineer, and i have no experiance in Structural constructions of those dimensions.

but you make a misstake, i would say that the ratio is not the same of the upper part and the lower part, the ratio is also not "linear over time"
i just want to point out that the upper falling part, also will "consume" energy.
and im sorry, but in said paper i can see the energy only beeing "consumed" by the lower part, and i find this very incorrect.
and i was hoping that especially Newton Bits would point out that i am totaly wrong.
and to be honest i dont know how the outcome would be if you consider a relative accurate ratio of that energy "consumption"
but i stronlgy tend to arrest.
and pls those of you with real knowledge in the mather. point out when i spread false information, lies, fraudelent anything.
in case im a tiny little correct, a litle confirmation from your "side" would be nice also.

critique is welcome, let it be constructive.

[DC]

So what we have here is somebody who has no expertise at ALL in ANY relevant field of study proclaiming that a peer-reviewed paper is 'pseudoscience'.

Hmmm. Whom to believe. Whom to believe...

do not belive me, belive the truth :)

[ElMondoHummus]

i am not an engineer, and i have no experiance in Structural constructions of those dimensions.

but you make a misstake, i would say that the ratio is not the same of the upper part and the lower part, the ratio is also not "linear over time"
i just want to point out that the upper falling part, also will "consume" energy.
and im sorry, but in said paper i can see the energy only beeing "consumed" by the lower part, and i find this very incorrect.
and i was hoping that especially Newton Bits would point out that i am totaly wrong.
and to be honest i dont know how the outcome would be if you consider a relative accurate ratio of that energy "consumption"
but i stronlgy tend to arrest.
and pls those of you with real knowledge in the mather. point out when i spread false information, lies, fraudelent anything.
in case im a tiny little correct, a litle confirmation from your "side" would be nice also.

critique is welcome, let it be constructive.

That's quite fair. Can anyone else with the requisite knowledge comment? I don't mean to try to make posting in certain threads compulsory, it's just that a couple of us here - DC and myself - are a bit beyond our education in this matter, and a professional/expert explanation can help illuminate things.

[DC]

and no icannot provide a quantitative answer.
prolly i never can, maybe i can one day.
the only way i know to do it needs a huge amount of time and money when you do it alone.

[David Wong]

This forum would be a different place if there was some way to impose an age restriction. You'd keep the 15 year-olds like DC off and maybe get some actual discussion going, instead of 4chan-style argument by wacky animated .gifs.

Can they create a separate kiddy forum where they can do that stuff?

[fuelair]

btw, am i the guy that try's to score and shoots towards the goal, but fail to score, indtead just hit the goaly (JREF) in the face?
Nah, the guy who trips over his own feet because he only has about half a cranium load of brain. Could be worse. Note, I am just applying real science to the question you asked (that you asked it proves the answer):D.

[DC]

would they add a little test, to test the user's knowledge about non electrical physical understanding, before they grant acces, it would also be alot diffrent.

Beachnut, how many attempts would you need? :flamed:

[njslim]

Speed of aircraft used was 550 kph (335 mph), actual speed is in range 800 (Flight 11)
and 900 (Flight 175). If was serious way not use correct figures. Using incorrect
numbers to "prove point" is typical Twofer or pseudoscience trick.

[twinstead]

do not belive me, belive the truth :)

So which one of our 'truths' is the Truth?

[DC]

Speed of aircraft used was 550 kph (335 mph), actual speed is in range 800 (Flight 11)
and 900 (Flight 175). If was serious way not use correct figures. Using incorrect
numbers to "prove point" is typical Twofer or pseudoscience trick.

that is indeed a little missleading number, another point to consider said paper as Pseudoscience, but i am still at my point of the "springiness effect"

we can continue later about that speeds.

but i don know why you would call Bazant a twofer, but his paper is indeed a little bit woo-like :)

[DC]

So which one of our 'truths' is the Truth?

what is the truth, thats a good question.

i will not say you, look this is the truth, i dont even know that sure if i know the truth. how sure are you to know the truth?
is it true that the upper falling and impacting part of the tower has also a "springiness"?
i think so, but i dont want you to belive me, and say yes thats trueth just because i said so.
try to find out. think about it, ask others.

ETA: but remember even Bazant agrees on the "springiness" of the lower tower part, so think about why it would be diffrent for the upper tower part.

[Finnegan]

[/QUOTE]So which one of our 'truths' is the Truth?[/QUOTE]
what is the truth, thats a good question.

What is truth?

*Looks around* Sorry.

Dictator Cheney, I think that what people are particularly perplexed by here is the ambiguity of your comments. Why don't you take a step back for a moment and then fully explain your objections to Bazant's paper.

[Par]

This forum would be a different place if there was some way to impose an age restriction. You'd keep the 15 year-olds like DC off and maybe get some actual discussion going, instead of 4chan-style argument by wacky animated .gifs. Can they create a separate kiddy forum where they can do that stuff?


I think much of the problem is that Dictator Cheney only understands a third – at the most – of what he is reading.

[DC]

So which one of our 'truths' is the Truth?[/QUOTE]


What is truth?

*Looks around* Sorry.

Dictator Cheney, I think that what people are particularly perplexed by here is the ambiguity of your comments. Why don't you take a step back for a moment and then fully explain your objections to Bazant's paper.[/QUOTE]

i was asked to explain, and i did my best to explain it in a clear way with my best english i can.

[Kage]

You've got some issues with your commentary here:

The paper you have referenced models the collapse of the upper block as a single block. However, this assumption is to show that the entirety of the upper black will fall at once. Read the appendix. They say that their model falls apart when you go up in floor number, as sections would be able to collapse independently.

The paper makes multiple best case scenario assumptions in favor of the structure's arresting the collapse. In spite of this, the paper still comes out with an order of magnitude overload. Assume, as I do at least initially, that an equal amount of damage happens above and below the collapse level after the tower has fallen 3.7m. At most you can half this order of magnitude overload. Remember, this is an overly generous assumption. How does this discredit this paper at all. Consider that this paper ignores fractures and the initial pulse from the impact, and assumption that lends far more than a factor of 2 increase in the strength of the building. How does your teensy objection change anything? After the collapse of these subsequent floors, their mass doesn't just disappear. They continue downward to crush the other floors. Nobody assumes that the top mass stayed perfectly intact through the collapse process. We would have found them lying there afterward if it had happened that way.

A larger problem with your "claim" against this paper is that it is one paper designed to show that the collapse had to happen. It doesn't pretend to show exactly how the collapse happened. It is not the manifesto of the debunkers. It is not the only analysis of the collapse. You would like it to be. But it is not. This paper could be completely wrong and it would still change nothing. It is, in fact, an elegant paper that does exactly what it says. It shows that there was no possible way for either of the towers to avoid collapsing due to the damage that they sustained. You want to say, "Oh it doesn't explain this or why does the top stay as one piece this means that it is totally false," or some gibberish. But that doesn't mean anything.

[DC]

I think much of the problem is that Dictator Cheney only understands a third – at the most – of what he is reading.

did you understand more than 1/3 of Bazant's paper?

[pomeroo]

it has been showed in another topic, in layman terms.


The paper you applaud, Heiwa's incompetent rubbish, was torn to shreds by real engineers. Yes, the junk peddled by conspiracy liars is pseudo-science. But, you swallow all of it! What's your point?

[DC]

You've got some issues with your commentary here:

The paper you have referenced models the collapse of the upper block as a single block. However, this assumption is to show that the entirety of the upper black will fall at once. Read the appendix. They say that their model falls apart when you go up in floor number, as sections would be able to collapse independently.

The paper makes multiple best case scenario assumptions in favor of the structure's arresting the collapse. In spite of this, the paper still comes out with an order of magnitude overload. Assume, as I do at least initially, that an equal amount of damage happens above and below the collapse level after the tower has fallen 3.7m. At most you can half this order of magnitude overload. Remember, this is an overly generous assumption. How does this discredit this paper at all. Consider that this paper ignores fractures and the initial pulse from the impact, and assumption that lends far more than a factor of 2 increase in the strength of the building. How does your teensy objection change anything? After the collapse of these subsequent floors, their mass doesn't just disappear. They continue downward to crush the other floors. Nobody assumes that the top mass stayed perfectly intact through the collapse process. We would have found them lying there afterward if it had happened that way.

A larger problem with your "claim" against this paper is that it is one paper designed to show that the collapse had to happen. It doesn't pretend to show exactly how the collapse happened. It is not the manifesto of the debunkers. It is not the only analysis of the collapse. You would like it to be. But it is not. This paper could be completely wrong and it would still change nothing. It is, in fact, an elegant paper that does exactly what it says. It shows that there was no possible way for either of the towers to avoid collapsing due to the damage that they sustained. You want to say, "Oh it doesn't explain this or why does the top stay as one piece this means that it is totally false," or some gibberish. But that doesn't mean anything.

when i want to prove that i can crush a steel cage with a steel cage, but for simplifications i will use a hamer to crush the steel cage, i can make a huge amount of other simplifications toward prevention of destroyed cage. aslong i can keep my hammer.

and isnt it that the one paper that is considered the "Official theory" when it comes to the WTC collapses beyond collapse initiation?

my intent was not to prove the paper wrong, not yet.

i only wanted to point out the frst point i see a huge flaw. no worry i have more.

but i would prefer to stick to this one little detail atm.

[pomeroo]

do not belive me, belive the truth :)


You continue to ignore the question I have asked you. You have demonstrated that you know nothing about engineering. Why should anyone take your word over a real engineer's?

[DC]

The paper you applaud, Heiwa's incompetent rubbish, was torn to shreds by real engineers. Yes, the junk peddled by conspiracy liars is pseudo-science. But, you swallow all of it! What's your point?

while i indeed refered to a topic created by Heiwa, did i actually want to refer to my post in that topic.

and where can i find the debunking of the technical part of Heiwas articel?

[moon1969]

Yeah Nancy Lieder is real good at that? Or the y2k people? I still remember when CT people claimed in 2003 that Planet z was supposed to hit the earth. Nancy Lieder and zetatalk? :D

Then there is David Icke who claims that Boxcar Willie was a reptile. Oh yeah and lets not forget the raelians or Erich von Däniken. Then there was Heaven's Gate religious group led by Marshall Applewhite and Bonnie Nettles. Looks like you can"t trust people who believe in CT stuff. :D

[DC]

You continue to ignore the question I have asked you. You have demonstrated that you know nothing about engineering. Why should anyone take your word over a real engineer's?

Listen

in contrary to you, did i not only read books about engineering books, i actially did read several engineering books during my education to a "Machine Designer" and after it. nothing about structural engineering but mechanical engineering.

what is very interesting is, when ones does not claim to be engineer or highly educated into engineering, everyone dears to atack his claims, everysingle one of you dared to atack my claims about "engineering"
and not a single time i got proven wrong, no the opposit. even ppl i thaught they are engineers, like Beachnut, made a fool out of them self, by just claiming totaly wacko stuff that nicely showed theyr lack of knowledge into Mechanical engineering.

i think it would now be a nice time to have my claims about my education and earlier jobs confirmed by Chillzero.
i did send her evidence that should backup my claims. i guess she didnt have the time jet to look at it. but i hope she can confirm it soon.

i even got atacked when demonstrating something Bazant actually uses in his paper, i claimed that there is this "srpinginess" effect, and i had to back it up.

why dont do the same ppl, that demanded me to back it up, ask Bazant et all to backup theyr stuff?
they can claim just because they have a respected "Ivory Tower"

[Kage]

when i want to prove that i can crush a steel cage with a steel cage, but for simplifications i will use a hamer to crush the steel cage, i can make a huge amount of other simplifications toward prevention of destroyed cage. aslong i can keep my hammer.

and isnt it that the one paper that is considered the "Official theory" when it comes to the WTC collapses beyond collapse initiation?

my intent was not to prove the paper wrong, not yet.

i only wanted to point out the frst point i see a huge flaw. no worry i have more.

but i would prefer to stick to this one little detail atm.

Sorry there chap, the rigid upper mass is necessary to show why the top fell 3.7m as one piece, not because that somehow made it easier for it to crush the lower part of the building after it impacted the lower section. Show me how the upper part could absorb enough energy to make up for the generously low order of magnitude overload and we might have an argument.

[DC]

Sorry there chap, the rigid upper mass is necessary to show why the top fell 3.7m as one piece, not because that somehow made it easier for it to crush the lower part of the building after it impacted the lower section. Show me how the upper part could absorb enough energy to make up for the generously low order of magnitude overload and we might have an argument.

why dont you show me, that the upper part will NOT "consume" energy?

[Good Lt]

Are you Boris Epstein, Dic Cheney?

[Kage]

why dont you show me, that the upper part will NOT "consume" energy?

Why? I don't have the burden of proof here. The Towers collapsed. After planes hit each one of them. And stuff burned. I don't need to prove anything to you. You have the crazy claims. This paper has math, figures, clearly stated assumptions, and in the end comes out with the towers collapsing because--get this--they had planes crash into them and stuff burned. You have to show me why this math and these figures are incorrect and the thing that I saw on TV and my family members saw with their eyes didn't happen the way that it looks. At the moment you have put forward a video of a kid being struck in the head by a soccer ball. Hilarious, but not persuasive.

[R.Mackey]

sigh.

In this simplified model, springiness in the upper block actually hurts, not helps, and I'll explain why.

The spring in the lower section has to eventually compress until it absorbs all of the upper block's change in gravitational energy. It's a larger spring, so it will take longer to compress than the upper block's spring. Resonant frequency ~ (k/m)1/2, k is approximately equal* on both sides of the interface, but m is much greater for the lower block than the upper block.

Springiness in the upper block means the upper block compresses as well. When rigid, the center of gravity of the upper block remains fixed, but when it compresses, this center of gravity lowers. Thus, there is more energy available than when the upper block is rigid.

Now, some of this energy is taken up by the upper block's compression, but this is a temporary cost. The upper block will rebound while the lower block is still in compression. This has the effect of increasing the load on the lower block for a brief period of time. In an ideal spring situation, these effects will roughly cancel and we are left with an impulse-smearing effect, which can help favor arrest, but Bazant & Zhou aren't considering impulse, they're considering total momentum budget. In a real system, the upper block's oscillation will be highly dissipative, and increase the tendency towards collapse propagation.

While actually making things worse, quantitatively this effect makes virtually no difference. If you disagree, Bazant & Zhou have set up the equations for you, all you have to do is add elasticity in the upper block. Go ahead and show me if I've made a mistake.

*: What actually happens is that the springs in the lower section are stiffer, i.e. klower > kupper, but you have to treat both blocks as a series of coupled springs, each of length approximately three stories (the distance between splices). Length comes into play. Coupled springs are weaker than individual springs, because they're coupled in series. As a result, the lower block's effective spring constant is comparable to or lower than the upper block, and thus its response time is substantially slower. This eliminates any possible benefit of upper block compression. Ideally, you'd want both to have the same compression time constant if you wanted the building to survive. It ain't gonna happen.

[Confuseling]

I hereby petition all posters to no longer respond to any post containing the 'word' 'ppl'. For the good of your children, if your sanity isn't enough.

[ElMondoHummus]

sigh.

In this simplified model, springiness in the upper block actually hurts, not helps, and I'll explain why.

The spring in the lower section has to eventually compress until it absorbs all of the upper block's change in gravitational energy. It's a larger spring, so it will take longer to compress than the upper block's spring. Resonant frequency ~ (k/m)1/2, k is approximately equal* on both sides of the interface, but m is much greater for the lower block than the upper block.

Springiness in the upper block means the upper block compresses as well. When rigid, the center of gravity of the upper block remains fixed, but when it compresses, this center of gravity lowers. Thus, there is more energy available than when the upper block is rigid.

Now, some of this energy is taken up by the upper block's compression, but this is a temporary cost. The upper block will rebound while the lower block is still in compression. This has the effect of increasing the load on the lower block for a brief period of time. In an ideal spring situation, these effects will roughly cancel and we are left with an impulse-smearing effect, which can help favor arrest, but Bazant & Zhou aren't considering impulse, they're considering total momentum budget. In a real system, the upper block's oscillation will be highly dissipative, and increase the tendency towards collapse propagation.

While actually making things worse, quantitatively this effect makes virtually no difference. If you disagree, Bazant & Zhou have set up the equations for you, all you have to do is add elasticity in the upper block. Go ahead and show me if I've made a mistake.

*: What actually happens is that the springs in the lower section are stiffer, i.e. klower > kupper, but you have to treat both blocks as a series of coupled springs, each of length approximately three stories (the distance between splices). Length comes into play. Coupled springs are weaker than individual springs, because they're coupled in series. As a result, the lower block's effective spring constant is comparable to or lower than the upper block, and thus its response time is substantially slower. This eliminates any possible benefit of upper block compression. Ideally, you'd want both to have the same compression time constant if you wanted the building to survive. It ain't gonna happen.

Ryan, if no one else says it: Thank you for the post. I was completely dancing on the edge of my comprehension there, and your post helps me understand what's being discussed.

Here's a question: Was I correct in saying that Bazant and Zhou's information basically says that any upper-section springiness is quantitatively insignificant? To me, you're pretty much saying that in your response ("While actually making things worse, quantitatively this effect makes virtually no difference."). B&Z's line saying:

...the elastically calculated forces in columns caused by the vertical impact of the upper part must have exceeded the load capacity of the lower part by at least an order of magnitude.

... leads me to conclude that it doesn't matter what DC says about "springiness" or whatever Heiwa's trying to say in his jabberings (to me, he seems to imply that the steel lower section has some inherent ability to absorb energies that no one else is considering). To me, when you talk about the energy involved in the fall of the upper section, you overwhelm the load capacity of the lower section period, no matter whether you think of the upper section as a spring, as "wool" :D, as a rigid block, or whatever, and you overwhelm it by a huge factor. Or in sum: We're talking potential energy in the upper section vs. "load capacity" in the lower section, and the PE is simply huge in comparison. Is my layman's interpretation of the concepts correct here? Yeah, I'm probably guilty of oversimplification, but again, this is well out of my education zone.

[R.Mackey]

Here's a question: Was I correct in saying that Bazant and Zhou's information basically says that any upper-section springiness is quantitatively insignificant? To me, you're pretty much saying that in your response ("While actually making things worse, quantitatively this effect makes virtually no difference."). B&Z's line saying:

... leads me to conclude that it doesn't matter what DC says about "springiness" or whatever Heiwa's trying to say in his jabberings (to me, he seems to imply that the steel lower section has some inherent ability to absorb energies that no one else is considering).

Yes. Bazant & Zhou show that the surplus of energy is so high (about a factor of eight) that minor corrections like springiness in the upper block can be safely ignored.

I must point out that there have been refinements to this paper, including our own Gregory Urich as well as Dr. Bazant himself in the update BLBG paper, and with these refinements the surplus goes down quite a bit. But it's still an overestimate. Once you take fracture into consideration rather than sheer overload, the actual dissipation is even lower.

In other words, we're hand-waving away upper block springiness, but we're doing so because an estimate of the problem shows that the springiness cannot possibly be significant. What I wanted to show here is that the springiness isn't even necessarily a benefit -- the proponents of upper-block springiness complain about this hand-waving, but then introduce hand-waving of their own by ignoring the actual dynamic response of the spring system. Pretty hypocritical, if you ask me.

[ElMondoHummus]

Yes. Bazant & Zhou show that the surplus of energy is so high (about a factor of eight) that minor corrections like springiness in the upper block can be safely ignored.

I must point out that there have been refinements to this paper, including our own Gregory Urich as well as Dr. Bazant himself in the update BLBG paper, and with these refinements the surplus goes down quite a bit. But it's still an overestimate. Once you take fracture into consideration rather than sheer overload, the actual dissipation is even lower.

In other words, we're hand-waving away upper block springiness, but we're doing so because an estimate of the problem shows that the springiness cannot possibly be significant. What I wanted to show here is that the springiness isn't even necessarily a benefit -- the proponents of upper-block springiness complain about this hand-waving, but then introduce hand-waving of their own by ignoring the actual dynamic response of the spring system. Pretty hypocritical, if you ask me.

Well, if it's shown to be insignificant, then I'd hardly call it a "handwave". Rather, it's an acknowledgement that the drop in the bucket doesn't change the nature of the contents of the bucket at all. But that's just me.

Also: I didn't consider the two spring system's response at first; I didn't even know that's the way such a system should react, let alone know that it's a significant element. But your explanation makes sense and helps me understand this a bit better. And yes, after thinking about it, I also agree that the selectivity of effects of the spring is hypocritical; if you choose to model along certain lines, then you accept both the benefits and consequences of such modeling. Mathematically, discarding springiness is a sop to convenience that doesn't change any result, while ignoring the "rebound" dynamics is an attempt to produce a favorable result. Either very sneaky, or very ignorant, but either way, it's a digression from reality. I see that now.

Thanks again for the posts. Very enlightening.

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh... I don't mean to beat this thread into the ground, but can we all now agree that this puts to rest the notion that Bazant and Zhou's paper is "pseudoscience"? Considering that the single substantive criticism proffered has been answered? And especially considering that, regardless of whether the substantive criticism was proven right or wrong, the assumptions built into the work were hardly out of bounds but on the contrary were quite acceptible mathematically?

As Mackey has pointed out, it may not have been a fully refined work since it was an early paper (Jan. 2002). And later knowledge has shrunk the boundaries of uncertainty about the calculations. But in the end, there's nothing about this work that's "pretending" to be science at all.

[DC]

sigh.

In this simplified model, springiness in the upper block actually hurts, not helps, and I'll explain why.

The spring in the lower section has to eventually compress until it absorbs all of the upper block's change in gravitational energy. It's a larger spring, so it will take longer to compress than the upper block's spring. Resonant frequency ~ (k/m)1/2, k is approximately equal* on both sides of the interface, but m is much greater for the lower block than the upper block.

Springiness in the upper block means the upper block compresses as well. When rigid, the center of gravity of the upper block remains fixed, but when it compresses, this center of gravity lowers. Thus, there is more energy available than when the upper block is rigid.

Now, some of this energy is taken up by the upper block's compression, but this is a temporary cost. The upper block will rebound while the lower block is still in compression. This has the effect of increasing the load on the lower block for a brief period of time. In an ideal spring situation, these effects will roughly cancel and we are left with an impulse-smearing effect, which can help favor arrest, but Bazant & Zhou aren't considering impulse, they're considering total momentum budget. In a real system, the upper block's oscillation will be highly dissipative, and increase the tendency towards collapse propagation.

While actually making things worse, quantitatively this effect makes virtually no difference. If you disagree, Bazant & Zhou have set up the equations for you, all you have to do is add elasticity in the upper block. Go ahead and show me if I've made a mistake.

*: What actually happens is that the springs in the lower section are stiffer, i.e. klower > kupper, but you have to treat both blocks as a series of coupled springs, each of length approximately three stories (the distance between splices). Length comes into play. Coupled springs are weaker than individual springs, because they're coupled in series. As a result, the lower block's effective spring constant is comparable to or lower than the upper block, and thus its response time is substantially slower. This eliminates any possible benefit of upper block compression. Ideally, you'd want both to have the same compression time constant if you wanted the building to survive. It ain't gonna happen.

thank you for your attempt of answering my questions.

i would like to stick to layman terms, as it better shows if one does understand what he is talking about, which i do not doubt in your case. but in some other cases.

but first i would like to point out, when we compare the WTC with a spring, it is in no way the sort of spring we deal with so often in daily life.
isnt it more like a spring that will deform, and thus "consume" energy, but other than normaly springs, this spring will be brought beyond its deformation ability, other than solid springs, this one will even "disintegrate", fall appart, for example, when the steel columns buckle, the bolts in those "splices" like you call them, will simply break. and alot other chearing of and ripping of, braking shearing bolts and so on.

i did not itend to show that such a falling tower part would bounce on the ground like a ping pong ball. it will "consume" energy at the moment of impact and during the whole deformation process. this will be the case when it falls on another tower part but also when it falls on the ground.

it is a very good point that indeed we should more think of a construction of many many springs.

and can you tell me how a spring that was deformed beyond its designed ability to deform, thus it will roughly keep it "new form", will give back the energy used to deform it. remember it is not able to get to its original form or shape, it is now a broken spring. how will that give back the energy to the collapse other than the mass of the deformed spring?

i can in no way see how the springiness effect of the upper falling tower part would contribute to Bazants outcome, i see it still as the exact opposite.

while you do talk about the lower spring as one big huge spring, Bazant is not using that correctly in his calculations, as far i can see, he uses in his calculations always just a part of it.

what he does would be in FEA modeling, like seting fixation points to every single floor (so they cannot move) not directly hit by the falling part. and that is manipulation in ym eyes.

and this way, the energy will only be affecting the direct hit storey.
additional to this very manipulative calculating, he does simply ignore that also the upper part will deform, use energy, and stay deformed or disintegrated.
(alot if not most of the outer coloumns of the upper tower would fall next to the tower, and not "help" the collapse to keep in movement)

what you are also saying in laymen terms is.
that the lighter and smaller version of one of the same spring can desptroy the bigger more heavy version totaly, by simply dropping it on it.

and instead of that you would say, Bazant needs to show us that he did the math, and that his assumptions are correct, i as an "Ivory Tower" outsider have to prove his specualtions or assummptions wrong.

i find that very strange.

[DC]

Oh... I don't mean to beat this thread into the ground, but can we all now agree that this puts to rest the notion that Bazant and Zhou's paper is "pseudoscience"? Considering that the single substantive criticism proffered has been answered? And especially considering that, regardless of whether the substantive criticism was proven right or wrong, the assumptions built into the work were hardly out of bounds but on the contrary were quite acceptible mathematically?

As Mackey has pointed out, it may not have been a fully refined work since it was an early paper (Jan. 2002). And later knowledge has shrunk the boundaries of uncertainty about the calculations. But in the end, there's nothing about this work that's "pretending" to be science at all.

not always when a good writen answer is given by a knowledging person it is the correct answer.

i still remain at the poitn tha Bazant's paper is Pseudiscience. in the current version it is linked to in the OP, it is pseudoscience.

it still lacks supporting evidence or plausibility

[DC]

Are you Boris Epstein, Dic Cheney?

no i am not

[DC]

Why? I don't have the burden of proof here. The Towers collapsed. After planes hit each one of them. And stuff burned. I don't need to prove anything to you. You have the crazy claims. This paper has math, figures, clearly stated assumptions, and in the end comes out with the towers collapsing because--get this--they had planes crash into them and stuff burned. You have to show me why this math and these figures are incorrect and the thing that I saw on TV and my family members saw with their eyes didn't happen the way that it looks. At the moment you have put forward a video of a kid being struck in the head by a soccer ball. Hilarious, but not persuasive.

look its not about his Math in his paper, its about the math that is NOT in his paper, that should be there to backup his simplifications and assumptions.

[DC]

btw Mackey

when you dropp a series of coupled springs on a longer series of coupled springs that are slighlty thicker, stiffer etc than the falling series of coupled springs.

will the smaler series of coupled springs, crush all the springs of that lower longer series of coupled springs, and after that the upper series of coupled srings will destruct itself ?

[Brainache]

btw Mackey

when you dropp a series of coupled springs on a longer series of coupled springs that are slighlty thicker, stiffer etc than the falling series of coupled springs.

will the smaler series of coupled springs, crush all the springs of that lower longer series of coupled springs, and after that the upper series of coupled srings will destruct itself ?

This might be a dumb question Dick, but you are aware that the twin towers weren't actually constructed from solid steel springs, aren't you? They were 30' long segments of steel bolted and welded together to a height of over 1000'. These lengths of joined together steel collumns were connected via lightweight steel floor trusses bolted to the exterior collumns and the core collumns.

When the top part started to fall, it overwhelmed the connections where the floors met the walls. In what way do you think that the connections meant to support one floor could stop the moving mass of 16 or 28 floors? Just how "springy" do you think these connections could be?

[DC]

No, you don't get it. You have to show us why it is pseudoscience.

I mean, I could pick up a rock and say that it shoos tigers off. It is not up to everyone else to prove that it doesn't work. It is up to me to prove that it works.

Is that clear enough?

is it your job to debunk the "Inteligent Design" theory?
or is it the job of the IDers to prove theyr ID theory?

[DC]

This might be a dumb question Dick, but you are aware that the twin towers weren't actually constructed from solid steel springs, aren't you? They were 30' long segments of steel bolted and welded together to a height of over 1000'. These lengths of joined together steel collumns were connected via lightweight steel floor trusses bolted to the exterior collumns and the core collumns.

When the top part started to fall, it overwhelmed the connections where the floors met the walls. In what way do you think that the connections meant to support one floor could stop the moving mass of 16 or 28 floors? Just how "springy" do you think these connections could be?

i am pretty detailed aware of the towers construction, in details, only a few ppl here on JREF are aware of it in such details.

also bolted connections have theyr "springiness" but only a tiny little bit compared to a box shaped steel columns, or an I-beam.

[eeyore1954]

DC
Write a calm intelligent rspectful letter to Bazant explaining your questions or objections about his paper. Also take the letter to the proper experts in a university near you and be willing to listen to their answers if they are willing to give you a little of their time. Send the letter to the Journal in which the paper was published.

For the most part "truthers" do not want to do these things because they are not really looking for the truth.

Do you wonder why the experts who read this article in the journal were not able to recognize it as psuedo science when you are? Is it possible that you are wrong? Or is it because only you have such understanding of what it said that you were able to see it for what it was.


Did you get your arguments from some "truth" website and because it agrees with what you know must be true you accept it?

[DC]

DC
Write a calm intelligent rspectful letter to Bazant explaining your questions or objections about his paper. Also take the letter to the proper experts in a university near you and be willing to listen to their answers if they are willing to give you a little of their time. Send the letter to the Journal in which the paper was published.

For the most part "truthers" do not want to do these things because they are not really looking for the truth.

Do you wonder why the experts who read this article in the journal were not able to recognize it as psuedo science when you are? Is it possible that you are wrong? Or is it because only you have such understanding of what it said that you were able to see it for what it was.


Did you get your arguments from some "truth" website and because it agrees with what you know must be true you accept it?

well maybe i should do that, but usualy i dont mail with Charlatans and Pseudo scientists.

it is oc possible that i am wrong.

and truther sites have nothing to do with it, some do say pretty the same i do.

[twinstead]

well maybe i should do that, but usualy i dont mail with Charlatans and Pseudo scientists.

I hope you're not arrogant enough to suggest that any expert who disagrees with you is a charlatan and pseudo scientist.


it is oc possible that i am wrong.

We'll, all those 'charlatans and pseudo scientists' just might agree.


and truther sites have nothing to do with it, some do say pretty the same i do.

Frankly, it is YOU who say pretty much the same as THEY do. Get it?

[eeyore1954]

DC you are not interested in the truth at all. Is the journal that it was puiblished in also a Psuedo science journal are engineers at a local university also charlatans. I suppose anyone who doesn't have the super reasoning powers that you posses is a charlatan.

I seriously doubt you came up with your objections on your own instead of just getting them some other "truther".

[Brainache]

i am pretty detailed aware of the towers construction, in details, only a few ppl here on JREF are aware of it in such details.

also bolted connections have theyr "springiness" but only a tiny little bit compared to a box shaped steel columns, or an I-beam.

So how were the box shaped steel collumns and I-beams going to exert their "springiness" to halt the falling mass when that mass was falling onto the floor pans?

[fuelair]

what is the truth, thats a good question.

i will not say you, look this is the truth, i dont even know that sure if i know the truth. how sure are you to know the truth?
is it true that the upper falling and impacting part of the tower has also a "springiness"?
i think so, but i dont want you to belive me, and say yes thats trueth just because i said so.
try to find out. think about it, ask others.

ETA: but remember even Bazant agrees on the "springiness" of the lower tower part, so think about why it would be diffrent for the upper tower part.
Just asking questions, then?

[DC]

So how were the box shaped steel collumns and I-beams going to exert their "springiness" to halt the falling mass when that mass was falling onto the floor pans?

do you know how much a such a steel colun wants to stay in its shape? do you know how much it will resist until the point of buckling?

[Brainache]

do you know how much a such a steel colun wants to stay in its shape? do you know how much it will resist until the point of buckling?

No I don't, but it seems irrelevent to me, given that the falling mass wasn't landing on the collumns. It was landing on the floors which were only connnected to the collumns by bolts. The heated colllumns in the initiation zone buckled due to heat weakening and excess load, but once they snapped the rest of the collapse had very little to do with the strength of the collumns.

[VespaGuy]

it is oc possible that i am wrong.


This is a possibility. Many truthers will not even admit that they may be wrong (I'm looking at you, Dylan).

So, now that you acknowledge that there is a possibility that you are wrong, what would convince you that you are?

[DC]

No I don't, but it seems irrelevent to me, given that the falling mass wasn't landing on the collumns. It was landing on the floors which were only connnected to the collumns by bolts. The heated colllumns in the initiation zone buckled due to heat weakening and excess load, but once they snapped the rest of the collapse had very little to do with the strength of the collumns.

when the columns had only less to do with the collapse, what ripped appart that core construction?

[DC]

This is a possibility. Many truthers will not even admit that they may be wrong (I'm looking at you, Dylan).

So, now that you acknowledge that there is a possibility that you are wrong, what would convince you that you are?

Detailed information to Bazant's C, which are not provided in his paper.
and also the calculations he based his decission on, to ignore the upper springiness.
and time to understand it.

would be a good start to convince me that i am wrong.

[Brainache]

when the columns had only less to do with the collapse, what ripped appart that core construction?

The core remained standing for several seconds after the rest of the building had collapsed around it. With its lateral support (the floors) gone, the core was unstable and it too fell down.

[DC]

The core remained standing for several seconds after the rest of the building had collapsed around it. With its lateral support (the floors) gone, the core was unstable and it too fell down.

THE CORE? or a few of the 47 core steel comuns? and the total length?

and do you have evidence that the core was not able to stand on its own?
afaik was the Core giving 60% of the structural stability of the complete buildings.
it was designed to cary 100+ floors, to ressist the wind and impacting airplanes.

but somehow it was not able to stand on its own., did the core topple over?
or did it fall propgressively with the rest of the building?

[Good Lt]

Detailed information to Bazant's C, which are not provided in his paper.
and also the calculations he based his decission on, to ignore the upper springiness.
and time to understand it.

would be a good start to convince me that i am wrong.So your argument now boils down to

9-11 was an inside jorb - didn't you see how Bazant ignored TEH UPPER SPRINGINESS!!?!

This is a joke, right?

[Good Lt]

and do you have evidence that the core was not able to stand on its own?


I'm sure you're well aware that you can't prove a negative.

it was designed to cary 100+ floors, to ressist the wind and impacting airplanes.

It did - the buildings remained standing after the planes hit and did not collapse upon impact.

[DC]

So your argument now boils down to

9-11 was an inside jorb - didn't you see how Bazant ignored TEH UPPER SPRINGINESS!!?!

This is a joke, right?

Did i ever, EVER, call 9/11 an Inside job, in any of my 40+ posts a day?

[DC]

I'm sure you're well aware that you can't prove a negative.



It did - the buildings remained standing after the planes hit and did not collapse upon impact.

oh the Buildings almost did perfect, no worry.
well untill short after initial collapse. then it started to become very very strange.

[Brainache]

THE CORE? or a few of the 47 core steel comuns? and the total length?

Yes the core. It is visible in videos and pictures taken during the collapse. You haven't seen it? Strange.


and do you have evidence that the core was not able to stand on its own?

I've seen pictures of it falling down, does that count as evidence that it couldn't stand?


afaik was the Core giving 60% of the structural stability of the complete buildings.
it was designed to cary 100+ floors, to ressist the wind and impacting airplanes.

Yes, as part of an integrated system, which included the floors, the outer collumns and the roof hat-truss. Without the stabilising of the rest of the system, the core couldn't even support itself.


but somehow it was not able to stand on its own., did the core topple over?
or did it fall propgressively with the rest of the building?

I already told you that it stood for several seconds after the rest of the building fell down around it. It sort of teetered for a second or two, then fell straight down. You mean you haven't seen that footage? Where have you been?

[DC]

Yes the core. It is visible in videos and pictures taken during the collapse. You haven't seen it? Strange.



I've seen pictures of it falling down, does that count as evidence that it couldn't stand?



Yes, as part of an integrated system, which included the floors, the outer collumns and the roof hat-truss. Without the stabilising of the rest of the system, the core couldn't even support itself.



I already told you that it stood for several seconds after the rest of the building fell down around it. It sort of teetered for a second or two, then fell straight down. You mean you haven't seen that footage? Where have you been?

i know the video where you can see atleast see a partial core very hidden in the dust.

and i know the video and pictures of the remaining few core columns.

but nothing like THE CORE REMAIN STANDING.
got a link?

btw, aslon the debate about gravity driven progressive collapse or CD driven progressive collapse is not ended i will not accept your evidence of the non ability to support itself of the core.

[Brainache]

i know the video where you can see atleast see a partial core very hidden in the dust.

Yep, about sixty storeys of it.


and i know the video and pictures of the remaining few core columns.

but nothing like THE CORE REMAIN STANDING.
got a link?

No link. Sorry. I bet you could find it on a site the kids keep telling me about. You Tube or something, I believe they call it.


btw, aslon the debate about gravity driven progressive collapse or CD driven progressive collapse is not ended i will not accept your evidence of the non ability to support itself of the core.

You don't have to believe me and my (no doubt over-simplified) description of these events, but if you want to convince anyone of your (frankly lunatic) ideas about a controlled demolition of the Twin Towers you'll need some evidence Dick.

[DC]

Yep, about sixty storeys of it.



No link. Sorry. I bet you could find it on a site the kids keep telling me about. You Tube or something, I believe they call it.



You don't have to believe me and my (no doubt over-simplified) description of these events, but if you want to convince anyone of your (frankly lunatic) ideas about a controlled demolition of the Twin Towers you'll need some evidence Dick.

i agree on the bloded one :)

[DC]

Yep, about sixty storeys of it.



No link. Sorry. I bet you could find it on a site the kids keep telling me about. You Tube or something, I believe they call it.



You don't have to believe me and my (no doubt over-simplified) description of these events, but if you want to convince anyone of your (frankly lunatic) ideas about a controlled demolition of the Twin Towers you'll need some evidence Dick.

i agree on the bloded one :)

[aggle-rithm]

what i really dont fully understand.


....could fill a library.

[funk de fino]

i know the video where you can see atleast see a partial core very hidden in the dust.

and i know the video and pictures of the remaining few core columns.

but nothing like THE CORE REMAIN STANDING.
got a link?

btw, aslon the debate about gravity driven progressive collapse or CD driven progressive collapse is not ended i will not accept your evidence of the non ability to support itself of the core.

You are aware that core columns were damaged by the aircraft?

[DC]

....could fill a library.

Oc that would fill a nice big Library indeed.

thats not the case, when it comes to your knowledge?

[DC]

You are aware that core columns were damaged by the aircraft?


yes heard of that.

do you know how NIST found out how much the impact damaged the Core?

[funk de fino]

yes heard of that.

do you know how NIST found out how much the impact damaged the Core?

You should know if you read NIST

[ElMondoHummus]

This is why I keep asking you for a quantitative backing for your analysis. All your objections come down to energy available vs. energy absorbed.


but first i would like to point out, when we compare the WTC with a spring, it is in no way the sort of spring we deal with so often in daily life.
isnt it more like a spring that will deform, and thus "consume" energy, but other than normaly springs, this spring will be brought beyond its deformation ability, other than solid springs, this one will even "disintegrate", fall appart, for example, when the steel columns buckle, the bolts in those "splices" like you call them, will simply break. and alot other chearing of and ripping of, braking shearing bolts and so on.


So in other words, energy will go into the disassociation of the connective points of the tower. I don't think anyone has any substantive disagreement there.


i did not itend to show that such a falling tower part would bounce on the ground like a ping pong ball. it will "consume" energy at the moment of impact and during the whole deformation process. this will be the case when it falls on another tower part but also when it falls on the ground.


So far so good. We both acknowledge that the whole issue is one of energy available vs. energy absorbed.


it is a very good point that indeed we should more think of a construction of many many springs.

and can you tell me how a spring that was deformed beyond its designed ability to deform, thus it will roughly keep it "new form", will give back the energy used to deform it. remember it is not able to get to its original form or shape, it is now a broken spring. how will that give back the energy to the collapse other than the mass of the deformed spring?


Okay, fine. So you say there's no spring-rebounding effect. I am far more sympathetic to Mackey's argument than yours because I believe he's talking about momentary impulses before the system disintegrates (correct me if I'm wrong!), but either way, I think your whole argument here is missing the point. Either that, or perhaps I misunderstand the argument. But if the system is not able to give energy back, then how is the "springiness" of the upper section you brought up earlier relevant? Your argument from before is that Bazant and Zhou have ignored this factor when they should not have. But now, you seem to be discarding it yourself. Am I understanding you properly? Either there's a springiness to take into account, or there's not, and unless I'm misinterpreting you, you've just reversed yourself on this question.


i can in no way see how the springiness effect of the upper falling tower part would contribute to Bazants outcome, i see it still as the exact opposite.

while you do talk about the lower spring as one big huge spring, Bazant is not using that correctly in his calculations, as far i can see, he uses in his calculations always just a part of it.


Again, forgive me for saying this, but you don't seem to understand the thrust of Mackey's argument. Recall that he said "While actually making things worse, quantitatively this effect makes virtually no difference". Or in other words, we know the effect must exist, but it's contribution to the energy absorption of the entire system is so small it's negligible. He's saying that it doesn't matter whether you take into account springiness or not, it's numerical significance on the bottom line is nil. Why? Because the energy released as a consequence of the collapse is so overwhelming that considerations about springiness vs. sold block treatment become irrelevant. It's sort of the same idea as the difference between a bug hitting a car on the highway and a bird; the mass difference between the bug and the bird is irrelevant when compared to the overall impact energy inherent in the system. Ditto the collapse; the difference in energy absorbed between accounting for springiness and not accounting for it is completely lost in the overwhemling nature of the energy release.

what he does would be in FEA modeling, like seting fixation points to every single floor (so they cannot move) not directly hit by the falling part. and that is manipulation in ym eyes.


I'm not qualified to speak on this point, so I'll leave that to engineers and physicists here in the forum. But, I do recall many agreeing with the fact that many of the Bazant/Zhou "manipulations" were to make the collapse harder to initiate, and if you consider other assumptions in place of theirs, then you actually argue that the collapse is more likely. The point behind all that being that it's disingenuous to argue about Bazant & Zhou's manipulations when said manipulations actually make collapse harder to begin with. But again, that's my layman's understanding; I'll defer to Mackey, Newton's Bit, Architect, or any others with a better understanding of the report than I have.


and this way, the energy will only be affecting the direct hit storey.
additional to this very manipulative calculating, he does simply ignore that also the upper part will deform, use energy, and stay deformed or disintegrated.
(alot if not most of the outer coloumns of the upper tower would fall next to the tower, and not "help" the collapse to keep in movement)


And again, we have an issue of energy available vs. energy absorbed. You seem to be implying that the lower structure has the ability to absorb the energy that is released by the collapse of the upper segment. The whole heart of the Bazant and Zhou paper, as well as the followups, is that there was definitely energy available, to overcome whatever resistance was inherent in the lower section. So again, this comes down to a quantitative assessment. If you think that the lower segments can absorb the energy, then please demonstrate this mathematically. Yes, I'm aware that you said you have not or cannot do the calculations, but if that's the case, and you don't have the numbers to form your assessment, then that begs the question of why you hold this opinion to begin with.


what you are also saying in laymen terms is.
that the lighter and smaller version of one of the same spring can desptroy the bigger more heavy version totaly, by simply dropping it on it.


I don't read it that way. I read it as "There's enough potential energy available in the upper segment to overwhelm the load bearing capacity of the lower segment". I think we risk oversimplification to merely treat the system as a pair of springs; to me (forgive the qualitative assessment, but I'm not a physicist) a spring has far more structural integrity compared to it's ability to exert force than a building does. A spring is monolithic, and does not have the myriad points of failure that a building has. Which is the exact point you were making in your first paragraph, so I'm somewhat at a loss as to why you make the point up front then fall back to the oversimplification later.

Again, others more qualified than I should feel free to correct that interpretation if it's wrong, but that's the way I see it at the moment.


and instead of that you would say, Bazant needs to show us that he did the math, and that his assumptions are correct, i as an "Ivory Tower" outsider have to prove his specualtions or assummptions wrong.

i find that very strange.

:confused: I don't understand that paragraph. The whole paper you cite is Bazant showing us the math. Am I missing something?

----------

not always when a good writen answer is given by a knowledging person it is the correct answer.

i still remain at the poitn tha Bazant's paper is Pseudiscience. in the current version it is linked to in the OP, it is pseudoscience.

it still lacks supporting evidence or plausibility

Although I disagree, I'll provisionally accept that judgement and in turn ask you a question: How does lacking evidence or plausibility make something pseudoscience? Science is a process, and the paper attempts to work through the question at hand using commonly accepted equations and calculations applied to the system as was best understood at the time. To be pseudoscience, you'd have to either argue that they're misapplying the well known concepts, that they're inventing concepts to apply, or that they're improperly modeling the scenario. And in any of those cases, again, the best argument to support your point would be a quantitative one. If you'd be willing to provide such a quantitative analysis, the perhaps your argument would gain traction.

[ElMondoHummus]

To any of the physicists or engineers in this forum - or you Architect ;) : Am I properly framing the issue as one of energy potential/energy release vs. energy absorption capacity? That is the concept that's gotten hammered into my head from reading this forum for so long. Seems to me that this whole debate I've been having with DC here is yet another rehash on that whole PE vs. capacity question, but I really do need a better trained mind to confirm or refute that question for me. I understand that the ultimate question is the ability of the lower segments to handle the energy that was released, and the bottom line is that they couldn't, despite any protestations about ignored effects or missing elements in the calculations. Am I on the right track here?

Yes, this is a plea for help. And I'm sorry if I'm dragging you all into something you all feel you've done a thousand times already. :o

[DC]

This is why I keep asking you for a quantitative backing for your analysis. All your objections come down to energy available vs. energy absorbed.

you cannot call my questions or concerns an analysis, i cannot deliver a quantitative answer, yet.

So in other words, energy will go into the disassociation of the connective points of the tower. I don't think anyone has any substantive disagreement there.

So far so good. We both acknowledge that the whole issue is one of energy available vs. energy absorbed.

indeed.


Okay, fine. So you say there's no spring-rebounding effect. I am far more sympathetic to Mackey's argument than yours because I believe he's talking about momentary impulses before the system disintegrates (correct me if I'm wrong!), but either way, I think your whole argument here is missing the point. Either that, or perhaps I misunderstand the argument. But if the system is not able to give energy back, then how is the "springiness" of the upper section you brought up earlier relevant? Your argument from before is that Bazant and Zhou have ignored this factor when they should not have. But now, you seem to be discarding it yourself. Am I understanding you properly? Either there's a springiness to take into account, or there's not, and unless I'm misinterpreting you, you've just reversed yourself on this question.

well the impulsive shock wave is left away in bazants paper as far i did understand.

a normal spring, and you compress it as far as it is allowed, you will need energy to deform it, and to hold it in this position, the steel for example is working against you. when you release it, the spring will "give back" roughly the energy you needed to compress it. it will go back into its "natural" shape.
you only "Elasticly deformed" the sping, the spring "consumes" energy but will release it when it wil "spring" to its original shape/position. (Somehow like a batery) (ETA: i was thinking about storing energy)



when you now compress the spring over its limit, it will deform permanent, it will for a great part keep the form you gave it by over compress it. you went over the limits of the spring, the spring is broken, it will not go back to its original position or shape, it will not be able to release the full energy you needed to compress it.
and thats how i see it at the towers.
1 there was no real springs, but steel is in most cases a sort of "spring"
its limits are oc not as good as real springs, the "Elastic range" is very small compared to a real spring. it will quickly deform permanent, thus, not releasing that much energy again.

so the needed energy to deform it is "consumed"
but actually only in the case that spring/storey is destroyed.
and when you now assume the upper part its lowest floor will not be destructed in an impact on the lower part of that tower, after 3.7m, then oc the upper part will not consume any energy.

so i would say that is a major flaw or i didnt make a huge huge error.
and pls feel free to point it out. i begg for it.

and i just would like to see some calculations or very good reasons why there is a reasson to do such a thing. i cannot understand it at all.



Again, forgive me for saying this, but you don't seem to understand the thrust of Mackey's argument. Recall that he said "While actually making things worse, quantitatively this effect makes virtually no difference". Or in other words, we know the effect must exist, but it's contribution to the energy absorption of the entire system is so small it's negligible. He's saying that it doesn't matter whether you take into account springiness or not, it's numerical significance on the bottom line is nil. Why? Because the energy released as a consequence of the collapse is so overwhelming that considerations about springiness vs. sold block treatment become irrelevant. It's sort of the same idea as the difference between a bug hitting a car on the highway and a bird; the mass difference between the bug and the bird is irrelevant when compared to the overall impact energy inherent in the system. Ditto the collapse; the difference in energy absorbed between accounting for springiness and not accounting for it is completely lost in the overwhemling nature of the energy release.

the effect for sure exist, and i bet Robert Hook would agree.
all i want are some calculations or reasons to ignore that little "law of physics"
i cannot find it in said paper.
so i had to conclude that said paper lacks evidence and contradicts reality, whitout giving a good reasson or shows me the math.

when i point that out.
i, a humble nobody is asked to do the math and prove it wrong.


I'm not qualified to speak on this point, so I'll leave that to engineers and physicists here in the forum. But, I do recall many agreeing with the fact that many of the Bazant/Zhou "manipulations" were to make the collapse harder to initiate, and if you consider other assumptions in place of theirs, then you actually argue that the collapse is more likely. The point behind all that being that it's disingenuous to argue about Bazant & Zhou's manipulations when said manipulations actually make collapse harder to begin with. But again, that's my layman's understanding; I'll defer to Mackey, Newton's Bit, Architect, or any others with a better understanding of the report than I have.

well for me specifically this simplification is very problematic and i would say it is in favor of gravity only driven collapse.


And again, we have an issue of energy available vs. energy absorbed. You seem to be implying that the lower structure has the ability to absorb the energy that is released by the collapse of the upper segment. The whole heart of the Bazant and Zhou paper, as well as the followups, is that there was definitely energy available, to overcome whatever resistance was inherent in the lower section. So again, this comes down to a quantitative assessment. If you think that the lower segments can absorb the energy, then please demonstrate this mathematically. Yes, I'm aware that you said you have not or cannot do the calculations, but if that's the case, and you don't have the numbers to form your assessment, then that begs the question of why you hold this opinion to begin with.

im not so sure if a 3.7m initiated collapse is stoppable by the towers.
but thats another point, that did not happen. thats a simplification i also have my troubles with, but not so much like the first one.

I don't read it that way. I read it as "There's enough potential energy available in the upper segment to overwhelm the load bearing capacity of the lower segment". I think we risk oversimplification to merely treat the system as a pair of springs; to me (forgive the qualitative assessment, but I'm not a physicist) a spring has far more structural integrity compared to it's ability to exert force than a building does. A spring is monolithic, and does not have the myriad points of failure that a building has. Which is the exact point you were making in your first paragraph, so I'm somewhat at a loss as to why you make the point up front then fall back to the oversimplification later.

Again, others more qualified than I should feel free to correct that interpretation if it's wrong, but that's the way I see it at the moment.

pls do not excuse for your oppinion :)
no body on JREF beside Apollo ever talked that respectfully with me like you do atm :) its a honor for me

you are right about that springs dont have alot connections, normally.
and that is why i sayd its a very good point from Mackey, to see it as a huge spring construction. alot of springs.

and i do agree the way the paper is set up with simplfications does leafe no other way than total collapse.

but i have a problem with the way they set it up, theyr "experiment".
it is not representative, nor in any way conclusive.

[QUOTE=ElMondoHummus;3638692]:confused: I don't understand that paragraph. The whole paper you cite is Bazant showing us the math. Am I missing something?

----------

actually i want mr. Bazant to backup his simplification about the "nonspringiness" of the upper part or show me his calc.

i really dont care, who Mr. Bazant is, nor how much respected he is.
i would like him to show us the math.

somehow i think, it is him that as to show the math, so i can do my math to show his math wrong.


Although I disagree, I'll provisionally accept that judgement and in turn ask you a question: How does lacking evidence or plausibility make something pseudoscience? Science is a process, and the paper attempts to work through the question at hand using commonly accepted equations and calculations applied to the system as was best understood at the time. To be pseudoscience, you'd have to either argue that they're misapplying the well known concepts, that they're inventing concepts to apply, or that they're improperly modeling the scenario. And in any of those cases, again, the best argument to support your point would be a quantitative one. If you'd be willing to provide such a quantitative analysis, the perhaps your argument would gain traction.

i think it is pseudoscience because it is missing some serious backup to some very strange simplifications.

and i think Pseudoscience , is a very "diplomatic" expression for said paper :)

[funk de fino]

and i think Pseudoscience , is a very "diplomatic" expression for said paper :)

Are you forgetting about the welded connections that made the columns. They were not one tall column like a tree. Where do you think they would most likely have given way first? Do you think that would have happened at what point during the spring phase you talk of?

The bottom part of the building is secured to the ground, it is fixed. The top part is not. What does this do to the springieness in each part and how does it make a difference?

The Bazant paper in my opinion is biased towards the collapse arresting yet they still show it would have collapsed. Gregory Urich, on this board, I believe, has now agreed that collapse would have ensued and he was of the same opinion as you not so long ago.

There were damaged core columns also. Did you find out how NIST knew this yet? Or how they analyzed it?

[DC]

You should know if you read NIST

this NIST (http://www.nist.gov/director/prog-ofc/report02-3.pdf)?

[aggle-rithm]

Oc that would fill a nice big Library indeed.

thats not the case, when it comes to your knowledge?

Actually, I believe that you understand a lot more than you're letting on.

However, like most truthers, you banish such understanding to the darkest recesses of your brain in order to preserve your cherished beliefs in an evil conspiracy of capitalists, Jews, communists, or whatever.

To me, that's sadder than abject ignorance.

[DC]

Are you forgetting about the welded connections that made the columns. They were not one tall column like a tree. Where do you think they would most likely have given way first? Do you think that would have happened at what point during the spring phase you talk of?

The bottom part of the building is secured to the ground, it is fixed. The top part is not. What does this do to the springieness in each part and how does it make a difference?

The Bazant paper in my opinion is biased towards the collapse arresting yet they still show it would have collapsed. Gregory Urich, on this board, I believe, has now agreed that collapse would have ensued and he was of the same opinion as you not so long ago.

There were damaged core columns also. Did you find out how NIST knew this yet? Or how they analyzed it?

Weldings? wasnt there someone that said they dont matter?

well Mr. Urich is free to agree on whatever he wants :)

damaged core colums? you got any video or pictures what would alow you to relatively accurate assume that damage? is this the way NIST knew it?

[funk de fino]

Weldings? wasnt there someone that said they dont matter?

Different welds you dishonest person. Another lie to avoid answering a question.

well Mr, Urich is free to agree on whatever he wants :)

Ask him for his calculations.

damaged core coloums? you got any video or pictures what would alow you to relatively accurate assume that damage? is this the way the knew it?

Did NIST or I claim it was video or photograph evidence? Do you know how they calculated core column damage?

[DC]

Actually, I believe that you understand a lot more than you're letting on.

However, like most truthers, you banish such understanding to the darkest recesses of your brain in order to preserve your cherished beliefs in an evil conspiracy of capitalists, Jews, communists, or whatever.

To me, that's sadder than abject ignorance.

that would be sad indeed, but when one would do the same to deny a conspiracy, it would also be sad.

[dudalb]

I think that Dictator Cheney's name is a pretty good indication why he is a truther. It not based on any evaluation of evidence.,but on his hatred of the Bush Adminsitration.
I don't like it either, but I am not going to allow my dislike to make me throw logic out the window so I can smear the BA with accusations that might hurt my cause in the long run.

[Good Lt]

that would be sad indeed, but when one would do the same to deny a conspiracy, it would also be sad.

I thought you said that you never claimed 9-11 was an inside job. Now we're supposed to seriously consider "conspiracies" in order to meet your standard of an "open mind?"

What is an inside job if not a conspiracy?

[DC]

Different welds you dishonest person. Another lie to avoid answering a question.

why do you cherrypick weldings pls?


Ask him for his calculations.

ist that the "SAP Urich" from over at "nutty" Steven Jones his "peer-reviewed" "journal" "?"

is that a twoofer with calculations? isn't that contradicting eachother?


Did NIST or I claim it was video or photograph evidence? Do you know how they calculated core column damage?

OMG? are you telling me they can calculate that? how on earth can you do that? is that possible?

[funk de fino]

why do you cherrypick weldings pls?

We were talking about the welds in the floor connections to the core and perimter columns in the other thread. We are talking about the core column splice welds here, stop running and answer and quit it with the lies.

ist that the "SAP Urich" from over at "nutty" Steven Jones his "peer-reviewed" "journal" "?"

Do you disagree with his calculations? If so show me why

is that a twoofer with calculations? isn't that contradicting eachother?

In your case, yes. He, on the other hand is interested in the truth in this case, unlike you. Dont be gullible all your life, you wanted calcs, he has them does he not?

OMG? are you telling me they can calculate that? how on earth can you do that? is that possible?

Are you saying you do not know? Does this mean you have not read the NIST report about it?

[DC]

I thought you said that you never claimed 9-11 was an inside job. Now we're supposed to seriously consider "conspiracies" in order to meet your standard of an "open mind?"

What is an inside job if not a conspiracy?

the OCT describes a conspiracy. involving 20+ ppl

im not so worried about the 20, im more worried about the +

im not sure that all conspirators have been pointed out. some may be from inside, some not, maybe you pointed out them all.

and when it would have been the Commys that conspired, would it then be an inside job?

Conspiracy does not always mean inside job

[Newtons Bit]

The bottom part of the building is secured to the ground, it is fixed. The top part is not. What does this do to the springieness in each part and how does it make a difference?

Technically, the connection to the foundation might be pinned :D

[DC]

We were talking about the welds in the floor connections to the core and perimter columns in the other thread. We are talking about the core column splice welds here, stop running and answer and quit it with the lies.
ah ok, what do you want to tell me about the weldings in this topic, just tell me what you think, and stop asking strange questions :)



Do you disagree with his calculations? If so show me why
i will belive him only when he knows exactly what software NIST used to do that impact damage core calculations.


In your case, yes. He, on the other hand is interested in the truth in this case, unlike you. Dont be gullible all your life, you wanted calcs, he has them does he not?

he seems to be a special truther, one that is interested in truth? not woo?




Are you saying you do not know? Does this mean you have not read the NIST report about it?

Let me think about it. Shoul-D Y read Nist? And why 2003?

[funk de fino]

ah ok, what do you want to tell me about the weldings in this topic, just tell me what you think, and stop asking strange questions :)

When, during your spring phase, do you think the core column splice welds would have given way? Would the core columns have behaved differently if they were all one piece?

i will belive him only when he knows exactly what software NIST used to do that impact damage core calculations.

He does not need to do it. Do you not understand what we are talking about here? Collapse progression after initiation. He has calcs that say the global collapse was ineveitable once the top part dropped onto the bottom part. Do you disagree with him? If so show why?

he seems to be a special truther, one that is interested in truth? not woo?

That would have been you that called him a truther not me.

Let me thinks about it. Shoul-D Y read Nist? And why 2003?

So you have not read it? Or you have but just do not know? Stop playing games, this is not playschool. It's pathetic.

[Good Lt]

the OCT describes a conspiracy. involving 20+ ppl

im not so worried about the 20, im more worried about the +

Name the 20 you're certain are "in on it." Go ahead. You asserted it as fact, so you must have some names or individuals to back that assertion up. There are at least 20, so you can give everyone a good place to start their investigations. Don't forget to include the evidence convicting them of murder.

Go.

im not sure that all conspirators have been pointed out. some may be from inside, some not, maybe you pointed out them all.

You're not sure of very much of anything, are you?

and when it would have been the Commys that conspired, would it then be an inside job?

??? WTF ???

YES. INSIDE JORB = TEH CONPSPIRACY.



Conspiracy does not always mean inside job

Inside job is always a conspiracy, and you claimed there were at least 20 members. Well, get to it and name some of them. Name the first 20, and we'll worry about the + later.

[DC]

When, during your spring phase, do you think the core column splice welds would have given way? Would the core columns have behaved differently if they were all one piece?

when your column splice welds give away, dont you think that would pretty well end a springphase?


He does not need to do it. Do you not understand what we are talking about here? Collapse progression after initiation. He has calcs that say the global collapse was ineveitable once the top part dropped onto the bottom part. Do you disagree with him? If so show why?

let me ask you one question.
did you read Gregory H. Urich's "peer-reviewed paper"?


That would have been you that called him a truther not me.
well thats true, and i really hope i did not uppset Mr. Urich



So you have not read it? Or you have but just do not know? Stop playing games, this is not playschool. It's pathetic.

with my lack of knowledge, would reading NIST make any sence?

let me ask you this.
Did you read NIST?

[DC]

Name the 20 you're certain are "in on it." Go ahead. You asserted it as fact, so you must have some names or individuals to back that assertion up. There are at least 20, so you can give everyone a good place to start their investigations. Don't forget to include the evidence convicting them of murder.

Go.


im sorry i cannot do that of the 20 accused ones from that OCT.


You're not sure of very much of anything, are you?
is beeing totaly sure something skeptical?




??? WTF ???

YES. INSIDE JORB = TEH CONPSPIRACY.



Inside job is always a conspiracy, and you claimed there were at least 20 members. Well, get to it and name some of them. Name the first 20, and we'll worry about the + later.

and when 1 person alone from the USA alone will kill americans, is that a conspiracy? it came from inside.

and btw, i got told about the 20 from said OCT i have not to worry, it is proven beyond any doubt. are you saying my information is not correct?

[funk de fino]

when your column splice welds give away, dont you think that would pretty well end a springphase?

Do you think it would? How much energy would it have taken?

let me ask you one question.
did you read Gregory H. Urich's "peer-reviewed paper"?

I have seen his calcs and his postings here. I like to read them until heiwa the incompetant spoils the threads. Do you disagree with his calcs? If so, show us why? Again you run away from a question and try to turn it back to me. Why is that?

well thats true, and i really hope i did not uppset Mr. Urich

lets hope so

with my lack of knowledge, would reading NIST make any sence?

If you read it you would lack less knowledge. Not much more understanding but more knowledge.

let me ask you this.
Did you read NIST?

Again you turn it back to me? Do you know what NIST used or have you read NIST report?

[DC]

Do you think it would? How much energy would it have taken?

i dont know



I have seen his calcs and his postings here. I like to read them until heiwa the incompetant spoils the threads. Do you disagree with his calcs? If so, show us why? Again you run away from a question and try to turn it back to me. Why is that?

i dont know




If you read it you would lack less knowledge. Not much more understanding but more knowledge.
but when i lack the ability to understand it do to my huge lack in physics that was pointed out by some "JREFer" from the beach.
what would be the sence in reading it, when i actually dont even understand what they try to say me.





Again you turn it back to me? Do you know what NIST used or have you read NIST report?

do you realize that you sound like a cop.
i think i could walk into a prominent "HQ" in Langley and claim they stonewalled the 9/11 commission and they would not ask me so much things like you do.
ETA: ok i retract the walking in :D

are you a cop or so? we call it "Gedanken-Polizei"

[fuelair]

do you know how much a such a steel colun wants to stay in its shape? do you know how much it will resist until the point of buckling?I never had a steel colon so I don't know, I'll have to take your knowledge on the battering it would need to buckle.

[DC]

I never had a steel colon so I don't know, I'll have to take your knowledge on the battering it would need to buckle.

you twistin my new word, i clearly wrote colun.

column.
colun is my version of Nucular, ok :D

[Good Lt]

im sorry i cannot do that of the 20 accused ones from that OCT.

So how can you have TEH CONSPIRACEEZ!! without perps?

It is plainly evident that you're just making this up as you go along.

is beeing totaly sure something skeptical?

You seem TOTALLY SURE it was TEH CONSPIRACY and it doesn't seem to bother you. Goose, gander.

and when 1 person alone from the USA alone will kill americans, is that a conspiracy? it came from inside.

You denied that you believed this in an earlier comment. Hence, you lied.

Thanks for admitting that you believe 9-11 was an inside job. Now you get to prove it.

Start by listing the "20+" conspirators you have the dirt on. Go.

and btw, i got told about the 20 from said OCT i have not to worry, it is proven beyond any doubt. are you saying my information is not correct?

The only thing that is proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that Islamic terrorists perpetrated 9-11, that you have no evidence to the contrary, and when pressed for information, you utterly fail to produce anything that could remotely be considered a plausible explanation.

[Kage]

Where is your actual science to counter this "pseudoscience?"

[DC]

So how can you have TEH CONSPIRACEEZ!! without perps?

It is plainly evident that you're just making this up as you go along.



You seem TOTALLY SURE it was TEH CONSPIRACY and it doesn't seem to bother you. Goose, gander.



You denied that you believed this in an earlier comment. Hence, you lied.

Thanks for admitting that you believe 9-11 was an inside job. Now you get to prove it.

Start by listing the "20+" conspirators you have the dirt on. Go.



The only thing that is proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that Islamic terrorists perpetrated 9-11, that you have no evidence to the contrary, and when pressed for information, you utterly fail to produce anything that could remotely be considered a plausible explanation.

i would say, when you are commenting on the JREF CT subforum, you should atleast know what the OCT is, and in case you dont know it, maybe you should just ask what is ment with OCT.

and maybe, looking up the word Conspiracy, to know what it actually exactly means, would also be a very good thing for you.

but hey, dont just belive me, i am just some twoofer.....

[DC]

You continue to ignore the question I have asked you. You have demonstrated that you know nothing about engineering. Why should anyone take your word over a real engineer's?

Pomeroo

can you pls point me out where i demontrated it?

[DC]

here a man that knows very much about springs and hook :)

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=__2YND93ofE

i know its just youtube, but its also just the MIT.

[funk de fino]

i dont know

More energy to buckle the columns than fracture the welds perhaps? Welds would be the weakest point, no?

i dont know

You dont know if you agree with his calcs or you dont know why you run away and wont answer quetions?

but when i lack the ability to understand it do to my huge lack in physics that was pointed out by some "JREFer" from the beach.
what would be the sence in reading it, when i actually dont even understand what they try to say me.

People here will try to help you if you want it enough. What you cannot do is pull people chains and run away from the help. If you continue to play games then people can see you are not interested in the truth.

do you realize that you sound like a cop.

Cops will continue to question suspects if they refuse to answer questions. Suspects do not generally throw questions back at cops like you are.

If I ask you a question you are supposed to answer. Then if you want to ask me something you go ahead and then I answer. This is how it works. You seem to want to run away from answering the questions but feel I should answer yours first?

i think i could walk into a prominent "HQ" in Langley and claim they stonewalled the 9/11 commission and they would not ask me so much things like you do.
ETA: ok i retract the walking in :D

are you a cop or so? we call it "Gedanken-Polizei"

Gibberish and not even mildly amusing.

[funk de fino]

Pomeroo

can you pls point me out where i demontrated it?

I will do it for Pom, this is from the WTC collapse laymans thread. This shows your complete and utter incompetance when it comes to engineering matters.

nice work Heiwa

[DC]

I will do it for Pom, this is from the WTC collapse laymans thread. This shows your complete and utter incompetance when it comes to engineering matters.

and what is technically wrong in heiwas paper, i know it is not perfect, but can YOU pont me out his errors?

i bet not, becuase your technical understanding seems not to be the best.

[DC]

More energy to buckle the columns than fracture the welds perhaps? Welds would be the weakest point, no?



You dont know if you agree with his calcs or you dont know why you run away and wont answer quetions?



People here will try to help you if you want it enough. What you cannot do is pull people chains and run away from the help. If you continue to play games then people can see you are not interested in the truth.



Cops will continue to question suspects if they refuse to answer questions. Suspects do not generally throw questions back at cops like you are.

If I ask you a question you are supposed to answer. Then if you want to ask me something you go ahead and then I answer. This is how it works. You seem to want to run away from answering the questions but feel I should answer yours first?



Gibberish and not even mildly amusing.

how was those weldings welded? what technik, what a shape, what was the added metal during the welding.
and what is the exact steel type of the columns?
tell me, and we can continue.

[funk de fino]

how was those weldings welded? what technik, what a shape, what was the added metal during the welding.
and what is the exact steel type of the columns?
tell me, and we can continue.

Sorry pal. You have once again refused to answer a simple question and tried to turn it back onto me. Stop playing games. This is elementary stuff the columns would have given way at the weld points and this is borne out by the pictures of the columns in the debris. You cannot answer anything given to you, why is that? Are you too stupid to answer or are you happy trolling away like a certain manchester gimp we all know?

[DC]

Sorry pal. You have once again refused to answer a simple question and tried to turn it back onto me. Stop playing games. This is elementary stuff the columns would have given way at the weld points and this is borne out by the pictures of the columns in the debris. You cannot answer anything given to you, why is that? Are you too stupid to answer or are you happy trolling away like a certain manchester gimp we all know?

when you think that is a simple question, then its ok.
but it seems to me you dont know nothng about the weldings you are talking about. as you cannot even answer my questions.

[funk de fino]

when you think that is a simple question, then its ok.
but it seems to me you dont know nothng about the weldings you are talking about. as you cannot even answer my questions.

Do you know about the weldings? If so tell me? This is basic stuff mate. The whys and wherefores of what type of welding and what type of metals were used and what was added during welding matters little to the basic premise. The weakest point on the columns were the welds and this is proven by the pictorial evidence. If you care to disagree I would like to see your evidence.

You are asking me questions without answering mine. This is not the way it works. Stop goofing around and stop trolling. In my job you do not tell the student the answer straight way, you try to coax it out of them, you get them to think and see if they can work things out. You are failing badly.

[DC]

Do you know about the weldings? If so tell me? This is basic stuff mate. The whys and wherefores of what type of welding and what type of metals were used and what was added during welding matters little to the basic premise. The weakest point on the columns were the welds and this is proven by the pictorial evidence. If you care to disagree I would like to see your evidence.

You are asking me questions without answering mine. This is not the way it works. Stop goofing around and stop trolling. In my job you do not tell the student the answer straight way, you try to coax it out of them, you get them to think and see if they can work things out. You are failing badly.

questions that make others think are very good tactic, i wonder why its not working with you.

about which Columns weldings are we talking, on what floor was they?

[funk de fino]

Core column welds, the full length of the columns.

Now I have answered one of your questions as a taster. care to answer any of mine?

[DC]

Core column welds, the full length of the columns.

Now I have answered one of your questions as a taster. care to answer any of mine?

on how many Core columns did that happen? and in the Box shaped ones or on the I shaped ones? or both?

[funk de fino]

on how many Core columns did that happen? and in the Box shaped ones or on the I shaped ones? or both?

Your english is poor or you are being deliberately obtuse.

I am talking about all the welds that were used to make up all the core columns. The pictorial evidence shows that the majority of the columns broke at the weld points when the collapse ensued. Correct?

[DC]

Your english is poor or you are being deliberately obtuse.

I am talking about all the welds that were used to make up all the core columns. The pictorial evidence shows that the majority of the columns broke at the weld points when the collapse ensued. Correct?

My english is indeed very poor, that why im so confused when ppl compare me to ppl from Manchester :)

a few pictures of those weldings would be good to illustrate what you mean.
just show me what you know :)

[funk de fino]

My english is indeed very poor, that why im so confused when ppl compare me to ppl from Manchester :)

a few pictures of those weldings would be good to illustrate what you mean.
just show me what you know :)

Why do you need a picture of welds?

[DC]

Why do you need a picture of welds?

in my "Bible" (VSM (http://www.vsm.ch/))
there are like 8 pages that only show a few of the many diffrent welding shapes there are.

you was not able to answer my question about the weldings, maybe when you show me a picture of yur weldings, i am able to see what kind of welding it once was :)

[funk de fino]

You want laymans terms but ask for specific engineering tolerances and specs? You are being a little dishonest DC.

The specs for the welds are in NCSTAR1-1A Appendixes C-G I believe.

It matters little to the basic premise of my question again. You are tap dancing once more. Is this a game to you? If so I will quit playing.

[Good Lt]

i would say, when you are commenting on the JREF CT subforum, you should atleast know what the OCT is, and in case you dont know it, maybe you should just ask what is ment with OCT.

and maybe, looking up the word Conspiracy, to know what it actually exactly means, would also be a very good thing for you.

but hey, dont just belive me, i am just some twoofer.....

Look it up?

9-11 Conspiracy Theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories) - yup. A collection of ridiculous nonsense that everyone knows it to be.

I would say that when commenting here, you should at least provide evidence disproving the "OCT" when you claim you have it. You know - specifics that you claim are wrong with the "OCT" backed up with evidence showing they're wrong conclusively. Which, of course, you haven't done.

Otherwise, you're no different from the rest of the trolls who frequent this forum - no evidence to the contrary, no plausible alternative and no hope.

[aggle-rithm]

that would be sad indeed, but when one would do the same to deny a conspiracy, it would also be sad.

True -- IF there were any compelling evidence for a conspiracy.

It is not, moveover, sad to deny the existence of leprechauns. Where I come from, that is referred to as "sanity".

[DC]

You want laymans terms but ask for specific engineering tolerances and specs? You are being a little dishonest DC.

The specs for the welds are in NCSTAR1-1A Appendixes C-G I believe.

It matters little to the basic premise of my question again. You are tap dancing once more. Is this a game to you? If so I will quit playing.

If you know German "non layman terms" feel free to use them, it might be that i already heard of it :) but English Nonlayman terms are difficult for me :)

[Brainache]

Basically Dick, I think the question is: How could the welds be stronger than the collumns?

[DC]

Basically Dick, I think the question is: How could the welds be stronger than the collumns?

Basically, I never claimed that :)

[funk de fino]

Basically, I never claimed that :)

So they were weaker?

[DC]

So they were weaker?

weaker like more flexible? more elastical?

[aggle-rithm]

Basically, I never claimed that :)

Have you claimed anything? If so, what?

[DC]

Have you claimed anything? If so, what?

well actually in this topic i claimed that atleast 1 assumption in this "paper (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf)" lacks supporting evidence or plausibility and especially backup by reality

[aggle-rithm]

well actually in this topic i claimed that atleast 1 assumption in this "paper (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf)" lacks supporting evidence or plausibility and especially backup by reality

Hmmm... actually, no, I don't think you did.

What is the one unsupported assumption, again?

[DC]

Hmmm... actually, no, I don't think you did.

What is the one unsupported assumption, again?

that the falling tower part has no "springiness" aka C

[funk de fino]

weaker like more flexible? more elastical?

No, the columns would break at the welds.

Go to Major Toms collection and see the columns broken at the welds.

Now why would they break there mostly?

[DC]

No, the columns would break at the welds.

Go to Major Toms collection and see the columns broken at the welds.

Now why would they break there mostly?

when you know they break at the weldings.
why do you ask me why this is.

i mean, when i explain it to you, would you belive me?

[funk de fino]

when you know they break at the weldings.
why do you ask me why this is.

i mean, when i explain it to you, would you belive me?

Another tap dance, stop running away and enter into debate or forget it sunshine

[aggle-rithm]

that the falling tower part has no "springiness" aka C

Well, more qualified people than you or I have already pointed out that the elasticity of such a structure would be so small in proportion to the forces it had to resist, it wouldn't make much difference in the calculations. Many such simplifications are necessary in trying to model real-world events so it doesn't get too complex to understand.

But, of course, you know all this.

ETA: I'll bet they also forgot to include the effect of sunlight on the buildings, the wind from the southwest, the mass of birds that may or may not have alighted on the roof, ground vibrations from pedestrian traffic, etc., etc. Would you consider the omission of these to be "unsupported assumptions" as well?

[DC]

Another tap dance, stop running away and enter into debate or forget it sunshine

i assume atleast one person in this forum knows that if i wanted to that i could pretty prezise illustrate you where in a fillet welding, the places of most stress are.

i could you even pretty prezise tell why this is so, in german.

im far more interested in how well you know what you talk about

so you tell me, i will point out when i think its wrong :)

[DC]

Well, more qualified people than you or I have already pointed out that the elasticity of such a structure would be so small in proportion to the forces it had to resist, it wouldn't make much difference in the calculations. Many such simplifications are necessary in trying to model real-world events so it doesn't get too complex to understand.

But, of course, you know all this.

ETA: I'll bet they also forgot to include the effect of sunlight on the buildings, the wind from the southwest, the mass of birds that may or may not have alighted on the roof, ground vibrations from pedestrian traffic, etc., etc. Would you consider the omission of these to be "unsupported assumptions" as well?

is there a peer reviewed paper, that proves or atleast gives a good reason, that you indeed can ignore the little fact of the upper tower parts springiness.

[funk de fino]

i assume atleast one person in this forum knows that if i wanted to that i could pretty prezise illustrate you where in a fillet welding, the places of most stress are.

i could you even pretty prezise tell why this is so, in german.

im far more interested in how well you know what you talk about

so you tell me, i will point out when i think its wrong :)

Tell me what you know then big guy? If you know the welds are the weakest point then what does that do to your springiness?

[DC]

or was anyone able to prove that the floor above point of initial collapse was undistructable in the crush down phase. i swear, i weal read that.

[DC]

Tell me what you know then big guy? If you know the welds are the weakest point then what does that do to your springiness?

1.70m is not really big :) and i try to keep my ego lower than that.

oh pls you tell me what it does to the springiness, afaik i answered that already :)

and what do you want to point out with it?
that the steel columns was not conform to theyr specifications?

[funk de fino]

1.70m is not really big :) and i try to keep my ego lower than that.

oh pls you tell me what it does to the springiness, afaik i answered that already :)

and what do you want to point out with it?
that the steel columns was not conform to theyr specifications?

You are not debating you are running away, you are a coward and you are very far from interested in the truth. Your attitude is disgusting and pathetic.

I am finished playing our game, however, I will not put you on ignore because I pray one day you may grow up and involve yourself correctly in this forum.

Tara

[DC]

You are not debating you are running away, you are a coward and you are very far from interested in the truth. Your attitude is disgusting and pathetic.

I am finished playing our game, however, I will not put you on ignore because I pray one day you may grow up and involve yourself correctly in this forum.

Tara

you are not debating, you are JAQoffing or however it is called here

[funk de fino]

you are not debating, you are JAQoffing or however it is called here

No, that would be you. You are a pseudo truther. You do not answer anything, you do not claim anything. You are a coward.

[DC]

No, that would be you. You are a pseudo truther. You do not answer anything, you do not claim anything. You are a coward.

i actually did claim something about the paper i linked to on this page :)

but why dont you give me a good reason or good calculations that the springiness of the upper tower part can be ignored. Bazant did not provide a good reasson in his paper. (other than the outcome)

[scissorhands]

DC/Aanthanur isnt interested in the truth or having any kind of constructive discussion about 9/11, pick any subject regarding the events and you will find the same evasive attitude, word play and ego stroking, he has spent years on youtube honing his "no claim" style down to a remarkable level of tedium.

[DC]

DC/Aanthanur isnt interested in the truth or having any kind of constructive discussion about 9/11, pick any subject regarding the events and you will find the same evasive attitude, word play and ego stroking, he has spent years on youtube honing his "no claim" style down to a remarkable level of tedium.

im very interested in a constructive discussion about Bazant's C for lower tower part and Bazants no C for upper tower part.

and ElMondoHummus started one, a very very good one i thinck.
and R.Mackey did also state his oppinion and he is welcome to continue the discussion, and especially ElMondoHummus is very welcome to continue.
but also all others.

me and another person did ask for assistance. but when you want to show me what i got wrong, dont try to test my knowledge, show me your knowledge. and when you know a good reasson to why we can ignore C for upper tower part.

well then present it. like mackey did. and i will talk about it with you. and try to explain what i think about it or how i see it. and we can continue in a dicsussion.

[scissorhands]

When you can come up with a reason why the "springiness" of the upper portion of the tower is in any way relevant to the final outcome then I might be interested.
The miniscule effect that this would have on the impact of the upper portion on the lower has already been pointed out to you.
Whats next Aanthanur?
Maybe you would like to discuss why air resistance of the falling upper portion was left out of the calculations?

[DC]

When you can come up with a reason why the "springiness" of the upper portion of the tower is in any way relevant to the final outcome then I might be interested.
The miniscule effect that this would have on the impact of the upper portion on the lower has already been pointed out to you.
Whats next Aanthanur?
Maybe you would like to discuss why air resistance of the falling upper portion was left out of the calculations?

1. you got any evidence that i am that Anthanur? or is this just what you think, or who you suspct me to be?

i think it has to be proven why we can ignore upper C. not the other way around, it is the "thesis" that claims we can, so pls provide evidence.

because it does contradict reality.

[scissorhands]

you got any evidence that i am that Anthanur?


Aanthanur (2 months ago)
what do you expect in an country that was ruled by a tyrann (installed by the US) for decades. and now since years theyr vountry is occupyed. Voilence every day in iraq.
its shocking to see such things, but you prolly never wasted a second on it to think how it came so far.
you think you are good the others are bad.
you balck and white world is discusting and far away from reality.

but warmongers dont realize that. they keep feeding the spiral of voilence.

gratz.

anthanur (2 months ago)
POV?
whats that?
the kid knows nothing. did she read Martin Luther Kind jr.? did she read about Ghandis life and fight for freedom? in how many countrys has she been? in how many have you been?


Aanthanur (2 months ago)
i have to thank my mother for my open mind.
and especialy she teached me, to see all the sides in a conflict.she teached me to see both sides of a medal and to not concentrate on one.
my oppinion differs from alot ppl on this planet :)

Aanthanur (5 months ago)
nei sicher noed, hett yo nuet mit finnland ztue, sondern mit finde :) also das d muess scho det si wuerdi saage, chunt natuerli uf din dialaekt ah.

I could go on but whats the point?
Why are you so embarrassed about your youtube persona?
:)

[DC]

I could go on but whats the point?
Why are you so embarrassed about your youtube persona?
:)

wow

you found someone on Youtube that mentions Ghandi and MLKjr.
AND
he can talk swiss. wow
and that is evidence that i am that person?

[scissorhands]

I think you will find its slightly more than the content thats the giveaway.
Why be embarrassed Aanthanur?
Maybe you dont want to discuss shanksville anymore?
Or rather, how you ended up being a killtown devotee?

[DC]

DC/Aanthanur isnt interested in the truth or having any kind of constructive discussion about 9/11, pick any subject regarding the events and you will find the same evasive attitude, word play and ego stroking, he has spent years on youtube honing his "no claim" style down to a remarkable level of tedium.

Aanthanur (http://de.youtube.com/user/Aanthanur)
Beitritt: 16. Dezember 2006

how many years?

[DC]

an BTW, when you want to prove that i am that Aanthanur, pls feel free, start a new topic. when you have evidence, i will be very very interested to see it. but here its more about Bazants C or no C.

:)

[scissorhands]

Have I touched a raw nerve DC?
You seem all flustered.

[funk de fino]

Aanthanur (http://de.youtube.com/user/Aanthanur)
Beitritt: 16. Dezember 2006

how many years?

Embarrassed at being a one time killclown disciple?

Ho ho ho, its you alright, exactly the same spelling mistakes and incorrect english we see here.

theyr

prolly

teached

ppl

bare faced liar and a no planer to boot

Pure gold, hoist by your own petard

[DC]

Have I touched a raw nerve DC?
You seem all flustered.

no , pls i begg for it, make a topic about it, bring up evidence or atleast try to convince the others.

but this topic is about something else.

[DC]

Embarrassed at being a one time killclown disciple?

Ho ho ho, its you alright, exactly the same spelling mistakes and incorrect english we see here.









bare faced liar and a no planer to boot

Pure gold, hoist by your own petard

how many ppl do use theyr instead of they'r
how many ppl do use prolly instead of the other more comlicated to spell correctly version?

and teached is wrong?

btw , do ppl that speak frensh for example, and try to speak or write english also make alot similar misstakes? in case he lacks english knowledge?

and could you now pls start the other topic?

[funk de fino]

no , pls i begg for it, make a topic about it, bring up evidence or atleast try to convince the others.


he already has, how silly do you feel now eh?

[DC]

he already has, how silly do you feel now eh?

not silly at all :)

i just didnt ee that he already did, i will now go there :)

[DC]

ok i do feel a little bit silly now, because i cannot find the topic.

[DC]

so funk de fino

why do you think we can ignore C upper tower part?

[scissorhands]

Aanthanur (1 month ago) Show Hide
0 Poor comment Good comment
Marked as spam
Reply | Spam
in my Bible, the bible of machine engineers, under thermodynamics, laws of thermodynamics, you can find a quote from Rudolf Clausius.

heat cannot of itself pass from a colder into a hotter body

Hmmm, DC mentioned "his bible" in a thread here recently.
I wonder if anyone can find this quote....

:)

Give it up, Aanthanur.

[DC]

how do ppl in the USA call theyr book with "specifications" (Normen) when they work with it every day? and mostly have to stick to those "specifications?"

and could you pls start that new topic now, i would like this to stay ontopic.

no worry
i will come and post there :)

[beachnut]

sigh.

In this simplified model, springiness in the upper block actually hurts, not helps, and I'll explain why.

The spring in the lower section has to eventually compress until it absorbs all of the upper block's change in gravitational energy. It's a larger spring, so it will take longer to compress than the upper block's spring. Resonant frequency ~ (k/m)1/2, k is approximately equal* on both sides of the interface, but m is much greater for the lower block than the upper block.

Springiness in the upper block means the upper block compresses as well. When rigid, the center of gravity of the upper block remains fixed, but when it compresses, this center of gravity lowers. Thus, there is more energy available than when the upper block is rigid.

Now, some of this energy is taken up by the upper block's compression, but this is a temporary cost. The upper block will rebound while the lower block is still in compression. This has the effect of increasing the load on the lower block for a brief period of time. In an ideal spring situation, these effects will roughly cancel and we are left with an impulse-smearing effect, which can help favor arrest, but Bazant & Zhou aren't considering impulse, they're considering total momentum budget. In a real system, the upper block's oscillation will be highly dissipative, and increase the tendency towards collapse propagation.

While actually making things worse, quantitatively this effect makes virtually no difference. If you disagree, Bazant & Zhou have set up the equations for you, all you have to do is add elasticity in the upper block. Go ahead and show me if I've made a mistake.

*: What actually happens is that the springs in the lower section are stiffer, i.e. klower > kupper, but you have to treat both blocks as a series of coupled springs, each of length approximately three stories (the distance between splices). Length comes into play. Coupled springs are weaker than individual springs, because they're coupled in series. As a result, the lower block's effective spring constant is comparable to or lower than the upper block, and thus its response time is substantially slower. This eliminates any possible benefit of upper block compression. Ideally, you'd want both to have the same compression time constant if you wanted the building to survive. It ain't gonna happen.
I think he missed this post.

[DC]

I think he missed this post.

no i did answer to it.

but then suddently, mr Mackey did not answer anymore, what is a shame, cause it seems he knows alot. and when what i sayd was so totaly wrong, why on earth isnt he ripping my woo appart?

[Tweeter]

Funk,calling a poster a coward is a breach in your user agreement.
Please dont do it again.

[Spud1k]

OK, DC, here's how it works. First up, you're the one who has the beef with the model used, so it's up to you to prove your own point, not for someone to defend the model.

Second up, you have to show that taking account of the points you raise would actually make a quantitative difference. To do this, you have to compare the results you get with and without your modification. This is called a 'model sensitivity study' in the business.

Until you can do that, you're just hand-waving and not owning anyone.

[scissorhands]

how many ppl do use theyr instead of they'r

Ooooh I dont know, prolly lots of ppl, Aanthanur.
Its a common mistake.;)

[DC]

OK, DC, here's how it works. First up, you're the one who has the beef with the model used, so it's up to you to prove your own point, not for someone to defend the model.

Second up, you have to show that taking account of the points you raise would actually make a quantitative difference. To do this, you have to compare the results you get with and without your modification. This is called a 'model sensitivity study' in the business.

Until you can do that, you're just hand-waving and not owning anyone.

no

actually it is mister Bazant that has to provide calculations or something else that would prove that we can ignore the springiness of the upper tower part.

and that did NOT happen in that paper, so i have to consider it pseudoscience.

an assumption that contradicts reality and is not backedup with calculations.
is it me that has to do Bazant's work?

[beachnut]

no i did answer to it.

but then suddently, mr Mackey did not answer anymore, what is a shame, cause it seems he knows alot. and when what i sayd was so totaly wrong, why on earth isnt he ripping my woo appart?
After reading your posts, it seem you may have no knowledge, or rational ideas on the topic. Why not do your own paper?

At least your sig is correct. You have one correct statement. Wait, it was my statement. Thank you for quoting me being correct. What is your summary of this OP, and why have you risked becoming the personification of pseudoscience?

[DC]

After reading your posts, it seem you may have no knowledge, or rational ideas on the topic. Why not do your own paper?

At least your sig is correct. You have one correct statement. Wait, it was my statement. Thank you for quoting me being correct. What is your summary of this OP, and why have you risked becoming the personification of pseudoscience?

how many time do you have to show us your lack of knowledge till you ralize that i maybe know more than you assume?

can you already show me the huge 3M rubber glue shock dampeners in the Truss-Core connections? i knew them from the truss-perimeter connections,
but the huge rubber blocks you pointed out are new to me.

do you really know that much about mechanical physics?

[Spud1k]

no

actually it is mister Bazant that has to provide calculations or something else that would prove that we can ignore the springiness of the upper tower part.

and that did NOT happen in that paper, so i have to consider it pseudoscience.

an assumption that contradicts reality and is not backedup with calculations.
is it me that has to do Bazant's work?

Bazant did his work. He made a paper that satisfied the editor and reviewers, therefore it got published. Unless you can prove he was dishonest somewhere to the point of warranting a retraction, nothing is going to change that.

The thing that can be changed is the perceived wisdom but to do that, someone has to show what is wrong with it, by making an argument backed up by evidence. A model can always be made more complex, right down to modelling every last paperclip, but whether that complexity is needed to describe the observations, that's the bit that you, as the party with the complaint, have to prove. Not Bazant.

[TheRedWorm]

Welcome, Spud! May your stay here be enjoyable and informative.

[beachnut]

how many time do you have to show us your lack of knowledge till you ralize that i maybe know more than you assume?

can you already show me the huge 3M rubber glue shock dampeners in the Truss-Core connections? i knew them from the truss-perimeter connections,
but the huge rubber blocks you pointed out are new to me.

do you really know that much about mechanical physics?
I thought the dark green was the glue. I thought the there were shocks on the floors too, but the one connection on the damper to the exterior column and two to the floor as you tired to show me. I was thing the two connections to the truss was the base pan of the floor. But he was talking about the single damper under the truss to the exterior column.

Now you have two things right, one by me, and finally one by you. Good job.

Now you use Robertson's design for dampers as truth and thus you must agree with his design impact. Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. Stretching it some; as you accept his design on dampers, so you accept Robertson's design impact speed!

Or are you as bad as I am? Always thinking you are right when you are most wrong. I have to wonder why you are parroting 9/11 truth failed mantra?

Do your own paper, use your own model.

[DC]

I thought the dark green was the glue. I thought the there were shocks on the floors too, but the one connection on the damper to the exterior column and two to the floor as you tired to show me. I was thing the two connections to the truss was the base pan of the floor. But he was talking about the single damper under the truss to the exterior column.

Now you have two things right, one by me, and finally one by you. Good job.

Now you use Robertson's design for dampers as truth and thus you must agree with his design impact. Stretching it some; as you accept his design on dampers, so you accept Robertson's design impact speed!

Or are you as bad as I am? Always thinking you are right when you are most wrong. I have to wonder why you are parroting 9/11 truth failed mantra?

Do your own paper, use your own model.

When mister Robertson can show me mister Skillings or who's ever calculations where i can see 180 MPH used in. i will agree on it.

when mister Bazant can show me convincing calculations, that clearly show me, yes indeed we can ignore C upper tower. i will agree.

till then, we only have theyr word. and to me, theyr word is not worth more than anyone elses.

robertson claims 180 mph, thats fine, provide evidence pls
Bazant claims we can ignore C upper tower, thats fine, provide evidence pls.

it is theyr claim THEY have to backup.
its as simple as this.


or can we start claiming stuff without evidence?
i mean alot truthers do that, and i see them under heavy atack. what is ok, because, they cannot backup theyr claims mostly.

but pls, use the same standards to others.

just because theyr name and title is far more known than others, does not mean they dont have to backup theyr claims, well atleast not for me.

and yes beachnut, everyone can be miss sometimes, that must not always mean its a lack of knowledge.

Look, i never claimed they used 600 MPH for sure, i do think they used 600 MPH, but i dont want to claim it, especially here on JREF, cause i as a truther would have to backup that claim.

Robertson on the other hand does not need to backup his claims, and i find this a little bit unfair.
i now Robertson is a very well respected man. but also he can be wrong.
is 180 or 600 is only speculative, cause we both cannot backup one or the other.

but i really think, when Bazant is ignoring C upper tower part, he should deliver good calculations or reassons to do this.

actually i do just the same what alot JREFers do with twoofers that post a claim. i demand evidence, backup.

thats all.

[DC]

Bazant did his work. He made a paper that satisfied the editor and reviewers, therefore it got published. Unless you can prove he was dishonest somewhere to the point of warranting a retraction, nothing is going to change that.

The thing that can be changed is the perceived wisdom but to do that, someone has to show what is wrong with it, by making an argument backed up by evidence. A model can always be made more complex, right down to modelling every last paperclip, but whether that complexity is needed to describe the observations, that's the bit that you, as the party with the complaint, have to prove. Not Bazant.

so in other words i can setup a model of the WTC, and assume things about it and i do not have to back that ssumptions up with plausile reassons or calculations?
woud it be your job to proof that my assumptions are wrong, or would it be firstly my job to proof that my assumptions are correct?

[eeyore1954]

no

actually it is mister Bazant that has to provide calculations or something else that would prove that we can ignore the springiness of the upper tower part.

and that did NOT happen in that paper, so i have to consider it pseudoscience.

an assumption that contradicts reality and is not backedup with calculations.
is it me that has to do Bazant's work?

Did the readers of the journal where this was published notice these errors. You know the people who are trained in that field.
You are free to consider it psuedo science but that doesn't male you correct.
Let Mr Bazant know about his errors I suspect once you point them out to him he will have an epiphany and realize he was wrong all along.