Bazant was right!! Imagine that

[Hornit]

Saw this today in my travels around the internet as I delve back into the twoofer fray over at Peak Oil.com.

I'm presently back at it after a self imposed hiatus. Seems some of the old crap has been found by some newbs and they are buying into it hook line and sinker.

This video is of a CD where they used an interesting technique. The building was prepped and rigged to have the center floors not exploded, but the columns pulled by hydraulics with cables. Check out what happens...

Gee looks very much like the WTC's doens't it? An excellent visual debunk of CD and how once the collpase begins it ain't gonna stop! And they did it on a much smaller building to boot!!!

Looks kind of like Free fall doesn't it.. ;) Apologize if this has been posted here already, have not seen it in my searches and recent reading here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syzKBBB_THE

[Brainache]

I didn't watch the vid you posted, but it sounds like the Verinage technique of demolition. There was an amusing incident a few months ago when a truther posted one of these videos as some kind of proof of a WTC CD.... only to discover several posts later that he had totally debunked himself. Hilarious!

Anyone remember what thread that was?

[Furcifer]

There was an amusing incident a few months ago when a truther posted one of these videos as some kind of proof of a WTC CD.... only to discover several posts later that he had totally debunked himself. Hilarious!

Anyone remember what thread that was?

All of them :D

This is a video of the Balzac. I'm really not sure if this a verinage or not? I don't think it is, but it was so long ago. I predict the next poster will know for sure (Where's my million bucks?)

[Travis]

Obviously faked for the following reasons:


No sounds of clapping hands in between levels being destroyed
No one yelling "Klunkity klunk" as each floor is destroyed
It clearly fell into it's own footprint except where it didn't
People seem to have been "forewarned" about the collapse
There is a complete lack of energy beams coming from space
The camera shots failed to show the other building that overflew this one at the moment of the fake collapse
Only thermite/thermate/nanothermite/pseudothermite/Oggeyboogy matter can do this and none are evident in the shots
Cardboard boxes show us that the top should have just tipped over and detached
Block A cannot collapse through Block B!

You are all so gullible you Sheeple! :p

Threads 3body was talking about:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=152216
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=152382
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=148426

[leftysergeant]

All of them :D

This is a video of the Balzac. I'm really not sure if this a verinage or not? I don't think it is, but it was so long ago. I predict the next poster will know for sure (Where's my million bucks?)

Yup. Classic verinage.

[matt.tansy]

Obviously faked for the following reasons:


No sounds of clapping hands in between levels being destroyed
No one yelling "Klunkity klunk" as each floor is destroyed
It clearly fell into it's own footprint except where it didn't
People seem to have been "forewarned" about the collapse
There is a complete lack of energy beams coming from space
The camera shots failed to show the other building that overflew this one at the moment of the fake collapse
Only thermite/thermate/nanothermite/pseudothermite/Oggeyboogy matter can do this and none are evident in the shots
Cardboard boxes show us that the top should have just tipped over and detached
Block A cannot collapse through Block B!
Don't forget the pyroclastic flow!

[alienentity]

Saw this today in my travels around the internet as I delve back into the twoofer fray over at Peak Oil.com.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syzKBBB_THE

Yup, that's verinage. You might like this one as well; notice the tower, the upper block crushing the lower, and the squibs...even though there are no explosives used.

EY3nj728WPY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY3nj728WPY

[angrysoba]

So, you admit it was a controlled demolition! No wonder shills like you are asking everyone to look for wires and blasting caps. The NWO did a demolition on those buildings without them!

[twinstead]

So, you admit it was a controlled demolition! No wonder shills like you are asking everyone to look for wires and blasting caps. The NWO did a demolition on those buildings without them!

Don't laugh. That's pretty much bardamu's position.

[Mobertermy]

Are you using a CD to show that WTC7 wasn't a CD? You seem to be saying "Here is a CD which looks like what we saw on 9/11 and this proves what we saw on 911 wasn't a CD." (I'm not a troofer I'm just confused by what you are trying to demonstrate here.)

[Edx]

Are you using a CD to show that WTC7 wasn't a CD? You seem to be saying "Here is a CD which looks like what we saw on 9/11 and this proves what we saw on 911 wasn't a CD." (I'm not a troofer I'm just confused by what you are trying to demonstrate here.)

To put it simply, this demolition doesnt involve explosives yet curiously exhibits all the same indicators of a demolition that Gage says is impossible without explosives.

[angrysoba]

Are you using a CD to show that WTC7 wasn't a CD? You seem to be saying "Here is a CD which looks like what we saw on 9/11 and this proves what we saw on 911 wasn't a CD." (I'm not a troofer I'm just confused by what you are trying to demonstrate here.)

There's a technical point here that many Troofers deny that a building can crush itself as it would "defy the laws of physics" for the top of the building to continue falling through a structure that would theoretically resist. They say only explosives can do that and yet there is a demolition technique demonstrated here showing not only that it is possible but that is predicated on the very idea it is possible. At least that's how I understand it.

I remember having an argument with someone about this who refused to believe the energy necessary to destroy the building was there, saying that the falling top part should have decelerated abruptly and, as far as I could understand his point come to rest about halfway down.

[NutCracker]

Are you using a CD to show that WTC7 wasn't a CD? You seem to be saying "Here is a CD which looks like what we saw on 9/11 and this proves what we saw on 911 wasn't a CD." (I'm not a troofer I'm just confused by what you are trying to demonstrate here.)

Err.. the argument is not at the level of comparing events. That's twoof, err, "logic."

The "squibs" are supposed to be evidence of the use of explosives. The verinage technique does not use explosives yet exhibits these "squibs." Since the tecniique itself, pulling supporting structural members away, does not produce "squibs" it must be concluded that squibs are a feature of a collapsing building.

[Gnu World Order]

Obviously faked for the following reasons:


No sounds of clapping hands in between levels being destroyed
No one yelling "Klunkity klunk" as each floor is destroyed
It clearly fell into it's own footprint except where it didn't
People seem to have been "forewarned" about the collapse
There is a complete lack of energy beams coming from space
The camera shots failed to show the other building that overflew this one at the moment of the fake collapse
Only thermite/thermate/nanothermite/pseudothermite/Oggeyboogy matter can do this and none are evident in the shots
Cardboard boxes show us that the top should have just tipped over and detached
Block A cannot collapse through Block B!



You also forgot the obvious: this had never happened before, so it obviously couldn't have happened this time!

[angrysoba]

I've heard "klunkety klunk" and clapping hands mentioned a couple of times now. What does it refer to?

[alienentity]

I've heard "klunkety klunk" and clapping hands mentioned a couple of times now. What does it refer to?

It comes from truther filmmaker Sophia Shafquat/Sophia Smallstorm's 2006 film '9/11 Conspiracies, Fact or Fiction'. It involves her fallacious argument that the time it would take for each floor to collapse is equal to the time it takes to say 'Clunkety Clunk'.
This infamous idiocy is a classic truther fail.

'1A. [Prof. Steven Jones]
You would expect the tower to absorb the shock but not just fail completely, and certainly not in less than 15 seconds as we observe.

1B. [Sofia Shafquat] That's basically free-fall speed. I have a hypothetical demonstration. A collapse is clunkety clunk, clunkety clunk, clunkety clunk, floor by floor.
Say that 110 times, and a major Republican tried this, he took his watch with the second hand and he said clunkety clunk 110 times, it took him over 3 minutes.'

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/08/history-channel-911-conspiracies-fact.html

[Mobertermy]

This technique is still a controlled demolition though. I don't see how its disproving anything the troofers say about buildings only collapsing symmetrically by CD. You haven't proved Bazant was right. Bazant said that 911 occured without CD. The building you show occured with CD. Don't worry this doesn't mean 911 was an inside job, but this by no means shows "bazant was right."

This doesn't look like a steel building either.

[angrysoba]

It comes from truther filmmaker Sophia Shafquat/Sophia Smallstorm's 2006 film '9/11 Conspiracies, Fact or Fiction'. It involves her fallacious argument that the time it would take for each floor to collapse is equal to the time it takes to say 'Clunkety Clunk'.
This infamous idiocy is a classic truther fail.

'1A. [Prof. Steven Jones]
You would expect the tower to absorb the shock but not just fail completely, and certainly not in less than 15 seconds as we observe.

1B. [Sofia Shafquat] That's basically free-fall speed. I have a hypothetical demonstration. A collapse is clunkety clunk, clunkety clunk, clunkety clunk, floor by floor.
Say that 110 times, and a major Republican tried this, he took his watch with the second hand and he said clunkety clunk 110 times, it took him over 3 minutes.'

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/08/history-channel-911-conspiracies-fact.html

Thanks, I'll take a look.

[TexasJack]

I've heard "klunkety klunk" and clapping hands mentioned a couple of times now. What does it refer to?

If you want to hear the idiocy, it's here:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/thestundieawards:stupidesttrutherquotes

[cyclonic]

I've heard "klunkety klunk" and clapping hands mentioned a couple of times now. What does it refer to?

Sofia 'clunkity clunk' Shafquat

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1661234396051243299#

clapping hands

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_IgH8_GpO4

[alienentity]

This technique is still a controlled demolition though. I don't see how its disproving anything the troofers say about buildings only collapsing symmetrically by CD. You haven't proved Bazant was right. Bazant said that 911 occured without CD. The building you show occured with CD. Don't worry this doesn't mean 911 was an inside job, but this by no means shows "bazant was right."

Yeah, without addressing the OP, (I'll let him tackle that) several posters have described the various important lessons from a non-explosive, top-down collapse in disproving truther arguments. Additionally, you mentioned that it doesn't disprove 'anything the troofers say about buildings only collapsing symmetrically by CD'. Well, I think that statement is actually incorrect, insofar as the WTC towers are concerned - and that's a very important mistake, IMHO.

The towers did not collapse symmetrically in any sense that a CD does - the verinage CD's very clearly allow an upper block to drop evenly onto the lower structure, whereas the upper blocks in the towers failed asymmetrically, as evidenced by the various degrees of tilt - in the case of WTC2 it was quite extreme. The subsequent destruction of the towers was also not into their footprints but flung debris randomly outside them, onto many other buildings.
This is hardly asymmetrical, and quite unlike any CD we've ever seen.

Hope that helps.

[angrysoba]

Sofia 'clunkity clunk' Shafquat

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1661234396051243299#

clapping hands

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_IgH8_GpO4

I'm not sure why but when listening to them I thought about roadrunner cartoons where a ledge breaks off a cliff-face and roadrunner or coyote manages to simply step off it.

That seems to be their thinking, "Imagine a floor hitting another floor at about the speed it takes me to clap my hands..." My God, what drivel! But nice to see them having a fun day out.

[Mobertermy]

Yeah, without addressing the OP, (I'll let him tackle that) several posters have described the various important lessons from a non-explosive, top-down collapse in disproving truther arguments. Additionally, you mentioned that it doesn't disprove 'anything the troofers say about buildings only collapsing symmetrically by CD'. Well, I think that statement is actually incorrect, insofar as the WTC towers are concerned - and that's a very important mistake, IMHO.

The towers did not collapse symmetrically in any sense that a CD does - the verinage CD's very clearly allow an upper block to drop evenly onto the lower structure, whereas the upper blocks in the towers failed asymmetrically, as evidenced by the various degrees of tilt - in the case of WTC2 it was quite extreme. The subsequent destruction of the towers was also not into their footprints but flung debris randomly outside them, onto many other buildings.
This is hardly asymmetrical, and quite unlike any CD we've ever seen.

Hope that helps.

By pointing out that the top of the WTC was asymmetrical that is another problem with comparing this video with the WTC. The technique used in this video has a symmetrical top smashing down causing symmetrical collapse beneath it. In the case of WTC we have an asymmetrical top section smashing down to cause a symmetrical collapse. Hope this helps.

[Horatius]

This technique is still a controlled demolition though. I don't see how its disproving anything the troofers say about buildings only collapsing symmetrically by CD.



The issue isn't "collapsing symmetrically", it's collapsing at all. There is a large subset of truthers who have declared that this sort of top-down collapse is physically impossible. They say that this sort of collapse cannot occur without the use of explosives (or themite) to cut all of the supporting columns, all the way to the ground.

This technique proves that such cutting is not, in fact, necessary.

As well, Bazant et al. wrote a paper explaining the energetics of just such a collapse, a paper which was widely condemned by the Truthers. This technique shows that, in at least some cases, Bazant's analysis was correct.

Therefore, all of their arguments that use this as a basis are shown to be flawed.

There may be other issues they can raise with the collapses on 9/11, but this particular one has been categorically debunked.

[jaydeehess]

This technique is still a controlled demolition though. I don't see how its disproving anything the troofers say about buildings only collapsing symmetrically by CD. You haven't proved Bazant was right. Bazant said that 911 occured without CD. The building you show occured with CD. Don't worry this doesn't mean 911 was an inside job, but this by no means shows "bazant was right."

This doesn't look like a steel building either.

"Bazant was right" in the sense that the energy to produce global collapse can be had if a large upper section is allowed to impact the rest of the structure.

In the verniage technique this is accomplished by pulling in the columns at one level which makes the point on those columns at which this is occuring unstable and unable to support the load above that point.

In the WTC towers this was accomplished by the weakening of the coulmns due to initial aircraft impact, heat and the pulling in of the perimeter columns by the sagging floor pans.

One TM adherent is famous (infamous?) for his insistence that a smaller, upper block simply cannot crush down a larger lower block. He says it is impossible thus putting him at direct odds with what Bazant has said.

With the verniage technique we see that Bazant is correct and the other (Heiwa) is incorrect.

Are you are now asking that a historical reference be found in which global collapse is caused by aircraft impact followed by widespread office fires?

[Horatius]

By pointing out that the top of the WTC was asymmetrical that is another problem with comparing this video with the WTC. The technique used in this video has a symmetrical top smashing down causing symmetrical collapse beneath it. In the case of WTC we have an asymmetrical top section smashing down to cause a symmetrical collapse. Hope this helps.



Thinking about this a bit more.

Here's the problem: How does one do science when that science involves large collapsing buildings?

Science often starts with an observation of a phenomenon, which might be a one-time event, over which you have little or no control (See: WTC collapses).

Then, science attempts to explain that observation by analyzing what data we have, and creating an hypothesis (See Bazant et al., discussing why the WTC collapsed as it did).

Now, normally at this point, we'd do some experiments, designed to clarify whatever issues the analysis raised. However, such experiments are hard to do in this case, as ramming planes into buildings is somewhat discouraged.

Thus, we must look elsewhere for experimental confirmations. Some people tried creating scale models (See: rabbit cage guy, pop can guy, Richard
"Box Boy" Gage, and others). However, the difficulties in properly scaling the material properties of these models so as to be accurate representations of the WTC buildings lead many to reject these models. To date, no researcher in scale-model design has addressed these issues, and as such, this avenue of inquiry would seem to be a dead end.

However, we have recently discovered this "verinage" technique. While this is not a perfect analogy to the collapses of the WTC (See above cited differences, as well as differences in scale and construction design), this technique is, quite probably, the best test of the hypothesis put forth by Bazant et al. that we will ever see, barring the sudden appearance of an eccentric billionaire who owns both a plane and a building he doesn't mind sacrificing for the sake of science.

Science is never perfect, which is why we always look for better experiments, better tools, better information. But just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean it's useless either.

[jaydeehess]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syzKBBB_THE

One interesting item I noticed.
If you pause the video at 5 seconds you notice that all of the columns that have been pulled are all deforming in the same direction(top of the bending section is moving to the right) however the upper portion displays no visible sideways motion.

[alienentity]

By pointing out that the top of the WTC was asymmetrical that is another problem with comparing this video with the WTC. The technique used in this video has a symmetrical top smashing down causing symmetrical collapse beneath it. In the case of WTC we have an asymmetrical top section smashing down to cause a symmetrical collapse. Hope this helps.

With due respect, you've just moved the goalpost. You allow that the collapses were not initially symmetrical - unlike verinage CD.

So you actually agree with my point. That should have ended it, but you now claim that the rest of the collapse WAS symmetrical.

You will need to back up your claim with some evidence in order to give it credence. You may want to refer to a definition of symmetry/symmetrical and think carefully before offering your answer.

I'll include it for your convenience:

Symmetrical
characterized by or exhibiting symmetry; well-proportioned, as a body or whole; regular in form or arrangement of corresponding parts.

Personally I think it's a waste of time to attempt to describe the tower collapses as symmetrical, nor does the relative symmetry have any relevance to Bazant's calculations. But I'll leave it to you to justify your claim.

[Edx]

This technique is still a controlled demolition though. I don't see how its disproving anything the troofers say about buildings only collapsing symmetrically by CD.

It does however prove that Gage's indicators of an explosive demolition are nonsense, doesnt it?

It proves that a building can easily pancake crush itself if the floors fail in a certain way. It shows it will create ejections of debris, large dust clouds, rapid collapses.

[alienentity]

Yeah, it seems a tad unfair not to allow us to compare a non-explosive top-down collapse in order to verify the physics, while truthers incessantly offer myriad other building fires as 'proofs' the WTC towers couldn't collapse - without getting into the engineering details, of course.
Since no other 110 story steelframe buildings have been struck by 500mph airplanes and survived, these are the only comparisons that can be made. The rub goes both ways.

[jaydeehess]

While I am not stating that Mobertermy is a TM I have noted that the TM claims symmetrical collapse when it is convienient to their senario and then claim assymettry 'should' have occured. In fact the collapses were significantly less than symmetric, just ask the people who are taking the Banker's Trust structure down.

While assymettry was the case the TM is quite careful not to define just how much more assymettric it 'should' have been, just that it was not as assymettric as they assume it would.
What do we want to call that? Backseat driving? Monday morning quarterbacking?

[jaydeehess]

Yeah, it seems a tad unfair not to allow us to compare a non-explosive top-down collapse in order to verify the physics, while truthers incessantly offer myriad other building fires as 'proofs' the WTC towers couldn't collapse - without getting into the engineering details, of course.
Since no other 110 story steelframe buildings have been struck by 500mph airplanes and survived, these are the only comparisons that can be made. The rub goes both ways.

There are times when the engineering details are important such as in how a structure behaves in severe fire conditions. I marvelled at the TM claiming that the Windsor tower did not suffer global collapse, only local collapse, so the towers should have stood as well. I have never seen that arguement made AND mention the fact that the core columns were concrete, not steel

[bardamu]

To put it simply, this demolition doesnt involve explosives yet curiously exhibits all the same indicators of a demolition that Gage says is impossible without explosives.

Better to say it's impossible without human (or divine) intervention.


This technique is still a controlled demolition though. I don't see how its disproving anything the troofers say about buildings only collapsing symmetrically by CD. You haven't proved Bazant was right. Bazant said that 911 occured without CD. The building you show occured with CD. Don't worry this doesn't mean 911 was an inside job, but this by no means shows "bazant was right."

I believe that's one reason why it was rejected by The Heiwa Challenge judge.



This doesn't look like a steel building either.

If it was steel, the building wouldn't have collapsed.


By pointing out that the top of the WTC was asymmetrical that is another problem with comparing this video with the WTC. The technique used in this video has a symmetrical top smashing down causing symmetrical collapse beneath it. In the case of WTC we have an asymmetrical top section smashing down to cause a symmetrical collapse. Hope this helps.

It certainly doesn't help Bazant!

[Mobertermy]

"Bazant was right" in the sense that the energy to produce global collapse can be had if a large upper section is allowed to impact the rest of the structure.

In the verniage technique this is accomplished by pulling in the columns at one level which makes the point on those columns at which this is occuring unstable and unable to support the load above that point.

In the WTC towers this was accomplished by the weakening of the coulmns due to initial aircraft impact, heat and the pulling in of the perimeter columns by the sagging floor pans.

One TM adherent is famous (infamous?) for his insistence that a smaller, upper block simply cannot crush down a larger lower block. He says it is impossible thus putting him at direct odds with what Bazant has said.

With the verniage technique we see that Bazant is correct and the other (Heiwa) is incorrect.

Are you are now asking that a historical reference be found in which global collapse is caused by aircraft impact followed by widespread office fires?

The problem of saying that Bazant is correct in this context is that we are using a controlled demolition that has a symmetrical upper block crushing down on a lower block causing collapse. If you look at the WTC its pretty clear that the upper block was not crushing down symmetrically and yet there is still a symmetrical collapse.

[Horatius]

The problem of saying that Bazant is correct in this context is that we are using a controlled demolition that has a symmetrical upper block crushing down on a lower block causing collapse. If you look at the WTC its pretty clear that the upper block was not crushing down symmetrically and yet there is still a symmetrical collapse.



But Bazant was dealing with an idealized collapse - he didn't model the exact collapse as it was observed. The truthers insisted that his analysis was incorrect, even when considered in light of this idealized case.

The verinage technique shows that their rejection of his analysis was wrong, plain and simple.

[Mobertermy]

It does however prove that Gage's indicators of an explosive demolition are nonsense, doesnt it?

It proves that a building can easily pancake crush itself if the floors fail in a certain way. It shows it will create ejections of debris, large dust clouds, rapid collapses.

Absolutely, if the floors fail in a certain way. Is the building in this video a steel structure though?

[Horatius]

To put it simply, this demolition doesnt involve explosives yet curiously exhibits all the same indicators of a demolition that Gage says is impossible without explosives.

Better to say it's impossible without human (or divine) intervention.




So, will you then admit that every truther who points out these indicators as being "proof" or "evidence" of the use of explosives is wrong?

Will you admit that Richard Gage is wrong?

[Mobertermy]

With due respect, you've just moved the goalpost. You allow that the collapses were not initially symmetrical - unlike verinage CD.

So you actually agree with my point. That should have ended it, but you now claim that the rest of the collapse WAS symmetrical.

I haven't moved the goalposts at all. Bazant claims that we have an upper block crushing down on the lower structure. Thats what we see here with the verinage, but that is not the case with WTC. Its that simple.

[Mobertermy]

So, will you then admit that every truther who points out these indicators as being "proof" or "evidence" of the use of explosives is wrong?

Will you admit that Richard Gage is wrong?


What do you mean admit Richard Gage is wrong? I never said he's right. All I'm saying is that the video posted here doesn't prove Bazant is right. Maybe try not attributing arguments to me that I'm not making alright.

[Lak]

Better to say it's impossible without human (or divine) intervention.
And the planes crashing into the towers - that is what triggerred the chain of events leading to the fires in WTC7, and eventually the collapse of the building - were not "human intervention" ? :boggled:

[Mobertermy]

But Bazant was dealing with an idealized collapse - he didn't model the exact collapse as it was observed. The truthers insisted that his analysis was incorrect, even when considered in light of this idealized case.

The verinage technique shows that their rejection of his analysis was wrong, plain and simple.

The problem with his idealized case is that it has an ideal upper block that is crushing straight down. Anyone can watch the WTC collapse and see that the reality has nothing to do with Bazant's ideal. You can also watch the verinage technigue and see that the idealized intact upper block crushing down symmetrically is there. I didn't know that if I disagreed with Bazant's idealized case that would all of a sudden make me a troofer.

[alienentity]

The problem of saying that Bazant is correct in this context is that we are using a controlled demolition that has a symmetrical upper block crushing down on a lower block causing collapse. If you look at the WTC its pretty clear that the upper block was not crushing down symmetrically and yet there is still a symmetrical collapse.

You keep repeating this (yet there is still a symmetrical collapse) as if it were an established fact.
It does not help your argument to do that. You need to establish the truth of that claim.

But I agree with jaydeehess' observations that the nebulous use of the terms renders them somewhat meaningless. Just as 'symmetry' can be reinterpreted endlessly, so can 'near freefall' and 'into it's footprint'

[Hokulele]

The problem with his idealized case is that it has an ideal upper block that is crushing straight down. Anyone can watch the WTC collapse and see that the reality has nothing to do with Bazant's ideal. You can also watch the verinage technigue and see that the idealized intact upper block crushing down symmetrically is there. I didn't know that if I disagreed with Bazant's idealized case that would all of a sudden make me a troofer.


Do you understand that Bazant's idealized case is the best posible scenario for the towers and the actual events were more likely to result in a global collapse than Bazant's model?

[Mobertermy]

You keep repeating this (yet there is still a symmetrical collapse) as if it were an established fact.
It does not help your argument to do that. You need to establish the truth of that claim.

But I agree with jaydeehess' observations that the nebulous use of the terms renders them somewhat meaningless. Just as 'symmetry' can be reinterpreted endlessly, so can 'near freefall' and 'into it's footprint'


Are you saying the WTC did not collapse symmetrically? How about the veriange building posted here...was that symmetrical?

[Horatius]

What do you mean admit Richard Gage is wrong? I never said he's right. All I'm saying is that the video posted here doesn't prove Bazant is right. Maybe try not attributing arguments to me that I'm not making alright.


Try re-reading that post to see who I was actually talking to.



The problem with his idealized case is that it has an ideal upper block that is crushing straight down. Anyone can watch the WTC collapse and see that the reality has nothing to do with Bazant's ideal. You can also watch the verinage technigue and see that the idealized intact upper block crushing down symmetrically is there. I didn't know that if I disagreed with Bazant's idealized case that would all of a sudden make me a troofer.

Do you understand that Bazant's idealized case is the best posible scenario for the towers and the actual events were more likely to result in a global collapse than Bazant's model?


What she said. Bazant's case was the best possible situation to have allowed the collapse to arrest, as the strongest parts of the structure (the columns) took the direct impact of the falling mass. That same impact on any other structure of the building would have been more likely to lead to a collapse, not less likely. Bazant's analysis showed that even in this best case scenario, total collapse was to be expected; the verinage technique shows that his analysis was most likely correct.

In the absence of any better analysis, or any better experiment, we can safely conclude from this that explosives were not needed to create the collapses of the WTC.

[1stClassAlan]

I have had an Email correspondence over several years with Mr Bezant - he was the only 911 postulator that ever replied to my enquiries. Initially I questioned his "pancake" explanation with "crush-up/crush-down" as it did not fully coincide with the actual progress of collapse I saw on 911. I saw the exterior tube wall elements pealing off in an outward curving action, some in single sections while others were still in large panels - the floor slab truss connectors failed at the exterior wall end first and rotated down until they hit the next floor below while still attached at the core end, when that end failed the debris continued downwards in a circular motion so that the whole dust cloud resembled a doughnut sliding down a pole. Exactly what happened to the core is unclear from all video I've seen as dust blocks the view - what can be seen is large sections of core columns (North Tower) falling virtually intact full height, that is to say with every floor connector already sheared off while still shrouded, these then fall in the director of WTC7.

I appreciate all of the above happening because of the overloading of individual elements rather than the global failure of everything.

[Hokulele]

I appreciate all of the above happening because of the overloading of individual elements rather than the global failure of everything.


Sure, there is a difference between the terms global collapse and global failure.

[Mobertermy]

What she said. Bazant's case was the best possible situation to have allowed the collapse to arrest, as the strongest parts of the structure (the columns) took the direct impact of the falling mass. That same impact on any other structure of the building would have been more likely to lead to a collapse, not less likely. Bazant's analysis showed that even in this best case scenario, total collapse was to be expected; the verinage technique shows that his analysis was most likely correct.

In the absence of any better analysis, or any better experiment, we can safely conclude from this that explosives were not needed to create the collapses of the WTC.

Well if you are saying that the way the towers collapsed don't match up with Bazant then I agree with you.

[DGM]

Well if you are saying that the way the towers collapsed don't match up with Bazant then I agree with you.
It's not supposed to. Some day "truthers" will understand what models are for (I'm not calling you a "truther").

[Grizzly Bear]

Well if you are saying that the way the towers collapsed don't match up with Bazant then I agree with you.

I've constantly reminded people who have difficulty understanding what Bazant's writing was about to look up what a limiting case entails. The fact that the collapses were under much worse circumstances than what Bazant includes in his model should be the biggest indicator that his overall conclusion that the collapse would have progressed anyway was correct. Of course some people have been reminded of this numerous times and still can't grasp the concept. Let's see if this is the case for you after the patient attempts of several others to help you...

[twinstead]

I've never understood the "ah ha!" we get from truthers about Bazant's model and how the towers actually collapsed, as if somehow it's proof of some kind of conspiracy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read Bazant's model as a proof of concept more than any representation of how they actually collapsed. From what this layman can tell, if the towers collapsed in Bazant's model, there was no way they weren't going to in real life.

[Mobertermy]

What are models for? (thanks for not calling me a truther.)

[Grizzly Bear]

What are models for? (thanks for not calling me a truther.)

A limiting case removes variables in order to simplify the equation. By assuming that there was no other movement in the collapse initiation other than straight down with a direct column-column contact, he calculated for the impact which was least likely to result in the collapse progression. A scenario where the full capacity of the columns could resist the collapse with the maximum efficiency; his conclusion was that even in removing the variables which made collapse even more likely it still would have happened.

It doesn't model reality, but then again it was never intended to in the first place... The collapses were not nearly as optimistic as his model.

[Mobertermy]

Bazant's model requires an intact upper block crushing straight down. Without that intact upper block crushing straight down you can't really even refer to it as Bazan't model anymore because it is a crucial element. I'd like to remind you that video in question posted at the beginning of this discussion does have an intact upper block crushing down. I was merely pointing out the simple fact that was not present on 911. So the title of this thread is correct "Bazant was right" - if you have an itact upper block his model works in reality. Without that block it wouldnt work. So I have no idea why Bazant's model would continue to be used to debunk 911 since it has no bearing on what actually occured. I also think that using Bazants model might actually have a damaging effect in that if we represent Bazants theory as the explanation as to why the towers fell anyone can look at the reality of how the towers fell and see that Bazant model doesn't fit at all.

[twinstead]

Bazant's model requires an intact upper block crushing straight down. Without that intact upper block crushing straight down you can't really even refer to it as Bazan't model anymore because it is a crucial element. I'd like to remind you that video in question posted at the beginning of this discussion does have an intact upper block crushing down. I was merely pointing out the simple fact that was not present on 911. So the title of this thread is correct "Bazant was right" - if you have an itact upper block his model works in reality. Without that block it wouldnt work. So I have no idea why Bazant's model would continue to be used to debunk 911 since it has no bearing on what actually occured. I also think that using Bazants model might actually have a damaging effect in that if we represent Bazants theory as the explanation as to why the towers fell anyone can look at the reality of how the towers fell and see that Bazant model doesn't fit at all.

I think the issue is truthers using the difference in Bazant's model to what actually happened to "debunk" the commonly-held narrative of the collapse, not the other way around.

[Grizzly Bear]

I was merely pointing out the simple fact that was not present on 911. So the title of this thread is correct "Bazant was right" - if you have an itact upper block his model works in reality. Without that block it wouldnt work.
I don't think the OP quite understands what the model was about either. It was a demonstration to illustrate why the collapse was essentially inevitable once it got started by quantifying it.

So I have no idea why Bazant's model would continue to be used to debunk 911 since it has no bearing on what actually occured. I also think that using Bazants model might actually have a damaging effect in that if we represent Bazants theory as the explanation as to why the towers fell anyone can look at the reality of how the towers fell and see that Bazant model doesn't fit at all.

Reread the response I just gave you a few minutes ago about Bazant's work being a limiting case model. You're doing the same thing every other "truther" does; by assuming he intended to make his model a replication of reality. It wasn't; stop treating like it was and maybe you'll understand better what it is people are explaining to you.

[Mobertermy]

Twinstead, the problem from my perspective is that Bazant's model has absolutely nothing to do with reality. He theorized an intact upper block that crushes straight down. Anyone can watch the videos and see this wasn't the case. Personally, I hate seeing Bazant's theory brought up because anyone can see that Bazant was wrong.

[Mobertermy]

Bazant's model is useless because it has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Period. Bazant's model requires an intact upper block crushing straight down. Anyone can watch the videos and see that this didn't exist. If you insist on acting like Bazants model explains anything having to do with WTC your just going to make it appear like truthers have a point.

[Hokulele]

OK, I'll take a stab at this.

Models are often developed as a "proof of concept". In other words, they are created to test whether or not something is actually possible before concluding that something is probable. Models can be physical constructs (although scaling can cause issues), computer simulations, or a series of equations and diagrams.

Bazant's first paper demonstrates that once started, regardless of how it began, a global collapse was inevitable based solely on the energy calculations. Later papers refined those calculations and looked at energy losses within the actual collapse.

So, once Bazant's model showed that the global collapse had to happen, it was then reasonable to start doing research into how and why it happened. If Bazant's model showed that the global collapse was impossible in the limiting case, then it would be reasonable to develop a model that more closely resembled the collapses as they actually happened.

To use an analogy that has been done here before, let's say we wanted to figure out whether or not David Ortiz can hit a home run in Fenway Park. David Ortiz himself may be unavailable to do some batting practice, but I am. On the third pitch, I knock it out of the park. If scrawny little me can hit a home run at Fenway Park, it is safe to conclude that David Ortiz can as well, even though I do not hit exactly like Big Papi. I am the model of the event, Ortiz is the real thing.

[Mobertermy]

Let me put it to you this way Griz. Show me on 911 an intact upper block crushing straight down. If you cant then show me that then bringing up Bazants theory is completely counterproductive. Its almost like intentionally giving truthers a weak argument to argue against.

[twinstead]

Twinstead, the problem from my perspective is that Bazant's model has absolutely nothing to do with reality. He theorized an intact upper block that crushes straight down. Anyone can watch the videos and see this wasn't the case. Personally, I hate seeing Bazant's theory brought up because anyone can see that Bazant was wrong.

Now I'm confused. You don't think the upper block was intact? We do know the upper block didn't crush straight down, it tilted and rotated a little first, but when I hear 'intact' in this context, I think the vast majority of the mass of the upper block crushed upon the single floor beneath the point of collapse initiation and overloaded it, which then collapsed on the floor beneath that which failed, which repeated all the way down.

Bazant's model in that respect didn't 'have absolutely nothing to do with reality'.

[Newtons Bit]

Are you saying the WTC did not collapse symmetrically? How about the veriange building posted here...was that symmetrical?

What does "collapse symmetrically" even mean??

[Mobertermy]

Look, all of you that are defending Bazant's model are missing one very simple fact. It requires an intact upper block. His model could basically be called the "intact upper block crushing straight down model." Without that intact upper block everything else meaningless. Thats why the verinage video supports Bazant...there is an intact upper block. But there was no intact upper block on 911. This is a simple point and I really hope you people aren't arguing against truthers using Bazants model as "proof" they are wrong because anyone can easily verify for themselves that Bazants model explains nothing on 911. If you are using Bazants model this would give the impression that there is no counter argument against truthers. See how it is coounter productive?

[Mobertermy]

Take a look at the video posted at the beginning of this thread and you will see a perfect example. Its not a hard concept.

[Newtons Bit]

Let me put it to you this way Griz. Show me on 911 an intact upper block crushing straight down. If you cant then show me that then bringing up Bazants theory is completely counterproductive. Its almost like intentionally giving truthers a weak argument to argue against.

Bazant's model is a limiting case. It is used to envelope the problem. Do you know what that means?

[Mobertermy]

Now I'm confused. You don't think the upper block was intact? We do know the upper block didn't crush straight down, it tilted and rotated a little first, but when I hear 'intact' in this context, I think the vast majority of the mass of the upper block crushed upon the single floor beneath the point of collapse initiation and overloaded it, which then collapsed on the floor beneath that which failed, which repeated all the way down.

Bazant's model in that respect didn't 'have absolutely nothing to do with reality'.


When I look at the footage of WTC I dont see an intact upper block crushing straight down like I see in the verinage video...do you?

[Mobertermy]

Bazant's model requires an intact upper block crushing straight down...yes or no.

The verinage video is an example of an intact upper block crushing straight down if you need a reference.

[tuc0]

When I look at the footage of WTC I dont see an intact upper block crushing straight down like I see in the verinage video...do you?
What do you see?

[Mobertermy]

I see the top portion tipping over at an angle and the angle is increasing.

[A W Smith]

When I look at the footage of WTC I dont see an intact upper block crushing straight down like I see in the verinage video...do you?


are you suggesting that an upper block that is not intact impacting an intact lower block is a best case scenario for collapse arrest?

[tuc0]

I see the top portion tipping over at an angle and the angle is increasing.
Which is what everyone has been telling you. I honestly don't understand the point you're trying to make. :confused:

[Mobertermy]

Well if thats what everyone is telling me then we all agree that Bazant's model doesnt explain WTC.

[Hokulele]

Bazant's model requires an intact upper block crushing straight down...yes or no.


And anything more destructive than Bazant's model is less likely to self-arrest...yes or no?

[Mobertermy]

This is a picture of Bazant's model.

xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx


xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx

[Mobertermy]

what do you mean? How can this confuse you. In Bazant's model that upper block comes straight down...it doesn't tip. If you want to talk about something not coming straight down you are no longer taking about Bazant. I think thats a good idea since that matches the reality of WTC whereas Bazants model does not.

[Hokulele]

I appear to have perfected the cloak of invisibility.


ETA: Do you understand that something can tip and come "straight down"? Do you think the actual top section of the towers went off to one side or the other?

[tuc0]

Well if thats what everyone is telling me then we all agree that Bazant's model doesnt explain WTC.
Only truthers claim that Bažant's model "explains WTC".

No. One. Else.

[Mobertermy]

Wait. Is the person that started this thread a truther?

[A W Smith]

Mobertermy:

What would be the best case scenario for collapse arrest? Ignoring what we actually saw that day with the exception of the collapse beginning at the initiation floors of course.

[Hokulele]

Wait. Is the person that started this thread a truther?


The person that started the thread was talking specifically about explosives used in CD, although it was worded a little misleadingly. No mention of Bazant.

[A W Smith]

The person that started the thread was talking specifically about explosives used in CD, although it was worded a little misleadingly. No mention of Bazant.

well actually its in the thread title

[tuc0]

Wait. Is the person that started this thread a truther?
No idea. The OP doesn't even mention Bažant except in the thread title.

[Hokulele]

well actually its in the thread title


True, but he or she didn't say what exactly Bazant was right about. :p


ETA: Maybe we should come up with a better wording of the OP, something along the lines of "A global collapse is inevitable when X conditions are present, as can be shown in the following videos".

Of course, that would summon the shade of Heiwa, and I don't think I could stand that for very long...

[Mobertermy]

The person that started the thread was talking specifically about explosives used in CD, although it was worded a little misleadingly. No mention of Bazant.

No mention of Bazant except that the title of the thread was "Bazant was right!!!"

[Hokulele]

No mention of Bazant except that the title of the thread was "Bazant was right!!!"


So are you claiming that Bazant's calculations were wrong?

[Mobertermy]

A W. I don't know. Can you tell me?

[Mobertermy]

So are you claiming that Bazant's calculations were wrong?

Who cares? His calculations can be right, wrong, or invent a whole new mathematics. Without the intact upper block crushing straight down it doesn't matter what his calculations are....thats what his calculations are calculating. I really hope you are not out there arguing with truthers using Bazant as your basis as to why they are wrong.

[Grizzly Bear]

No mention of Bazant except that the title of the thread was "Bazant was right!!!"

When you show any interest in understanding what you're discussing please let us know. :\
The discussion is becoming rather pointless since you're making an argument based on a malformed understanding of what you're talking about.

You've been asked by several people already which scenario would be more biased toward collapse arrest. Would you agree with the assessment that Bazant intentionally biased his model in favor of collapse arrest or not? You're answer will tell us how much you actually understand about the model, rather than enlighten everyone about the problems you have with how people interpret his work. :\

Are you going to fill in this blank or not?

[Hokulele]

Who cares? His calculations can be right, wrong, or invent a whole new mathematics. Without the intact upper block crushing straight down it doesn't matter what his calculations are.


This is why I, and others, have asked you if you believe that the collapse as seen would be more or less likely to self-arrest than Bazant's model. Do you have an answer for this?

ETA: @ Grizzly Bear: Jinx! You owe me a Coke.

[johnny karate]

Only truthers claim that Bažant's model "explains WTC".

No. One. Else.

Wait. Is the person that started this thread a truther?


From the OP (bolding mine):
Gee looks very much like the WTC's doens't it? An excellent visual debunk of CD and how once the collpase begins it ain't gonna stop! And they did it on a much smaller building to boot!!!

I believe the inability of the collapse to arrest itself is the parallel being drawn between the Bazant model, the collapse shown in the linked video, and the WTC collapses. At no point does the OP make an assertion that the Bazant model does, or was meant to, "explain" either WTC collapse. I can't imagine why anyone would argue otherwise.

[A W Smith]

Lets try this:

Bazant's model shows that under the best of circumstances, That being a column end on column end impact,. That the towers could not arrest collapse.

Truthers theorize, that you could drop an intact upper section on an intact lower section. (From 2 miles up in banned forum member "heiwas" case) and the collapse would immediately arrest

The OP shows an example of collapse from an intact upper section impacting an intact and not weakened lower section.


Therefore: Bazant limiting case model proven correct.

[Mobertermy]

When you show any interest in understanding what you're discussing please let us know. :\
The discussion is becoming rather pointless since you're making an argument based on a malformed understanding of what you're talking about.

You've been asked by several people already which scenario would be more biased toward collapse arrest. Would you agree with the assessment that Bazant intentionally biased his model in favor of collapse arrest or not? You're answer will tell us how much you actually understand about the model, rather than enlighten everyone about the problems you have with how people interpret his work. :\

Are you going to fill in this blank or not?


It doesn't *********** matter! His model requires an intact upper block crushing straight down. Without that as the starting point you aren't even discussing Bazant's model...you'd be discussing some completely other model which I'm all for because at least then you'd be talking about what actually occured on 911 and not giving truthers a nice little strawman to argue against. Congrats.

[Mobertermy]

From the OP (bolding mine):


I believe the inability of the collapse to arrest itself is the parallel being drawn between the Bazant model and the collapse shown in the linked video. At no point does the OP make an assertion that the Bazant model is, or was meant to be, an exact recreation of either WTC collapse. I can't imagine why ayone would argue otherwise.


Maybe because he explicitly says it looks alot like the WTC. Which is true of WTC7 but not true of 1 and 2. And no one has ever used Bazant to explain WTC 7 so I really dont see how the OP has made anything but a bad argument and the fact that you all have jumped on board to protect him mkaes me wonder exactly what type of group think is going on here.

[Mobertermy]

Lets try this:

Bazant's model shows that under the best of circumstances, That being a column end on column end impact,. That the towers could not arrest collapse.

Truthers theorize, that you could drop an intact upper section on an intact lower section. (From 2 miles up in banned forum member "heiwas" case) and the collapse would immediately arrest

The OP shows an example of collapse from an intact upper section impacting an intact and not weakened lower section.


Therefore: Bazant limiting case model proven correct.

A W. I'm not to familar with Heiwa but it sounds like he is saying that Bazants calculations are incorrect. Is that right?

[tuc0]

This is beyond pointless.

[A W Smith]

i give up

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/facepalm2ly3.jpg

[Hokulele]

A W. I'm not to familar with Heiwa but it sounds like he is saying that Bazants calculations are incorrect. Is that right?


Yes, that is what Heiwa claimed. Why should you care? You are making the claim that Bazant is irrelevant, no?

[Newtons Bit]

It doesn't *********** matter! His model requires an intact upper block crushing straight down. Without that as the starting point you aren't even discussing Bazant's model...you'd be discussing some completely other model which I'm all for because at least then you'd be talking about what actually occured on 911 and not giving truthers a nice little strawman to argue against. Congrats.

I'll ask you again: do you understand what a limiting case is? Do you understand what it means to envelope a problem?

[Mobertermy]

Edited for civility.

[carlitos]

Mobertermy, it would help things if you could calm down and answer the simple questions that were directed towards you. Answering "It doesn't *********** matter!" and name-calling is really not helpful.

Here - try to answer this one.

This is why I, and others, have asked you if you believe that the collapse as seen would be more or less likely to self-arrest than Bazant's model. Do you have an answer for this?

[Mobertermy]

I agreed with you. Bazants model was right thats what Im going to use to argue against truthers. Thanks. What should I tell them when they point out that the top of the building isnt falling straight down but is toppling over?

[NoZed Avenger]

Edited for civility.



Despite my conviction that I am simply another hopeless social retard, I will make a stab at this.

I am not a mathy person or a science guy, so maybe I can help bridge the gap between you and the people spending time on this.

First, let's see if everyone is communicating. This is my lay understanding. Let me break this out into discrete steps and please tell me what you believe is incorrect or needs adjustment (open to anyone else who feels I am going wrong):

(1) Bazant was not creating a model for the Towers' collapse.
(2) Bazant was creating a model to test if a collapse would occur if an upper area were dropped straight onto the intact floors beneath.
(3) Bazant concluded a collapse would occur, even in those circumstances.
(4) The *actual* circumstances were even more favorable for collapse than his model.
(5) Whether "intact" or not, a large volume of stuff was dropped onto lower floors.
(6) Whether "symmetrical" or not, a large volume of stuff was dropped onto lower floors
(7) The fact that the load was not dropped straight down onto the supporting members below it actually made the collapse more likely by stressing weaker elements.

As for the video and the non-explosive demolition,

(8) it provides some support for Bazant's theoretical work, in that it does successfully show explosives and thermite were not necessary to cause a collapse under similar (though not identical) circumstances.



Are we together so far? If so, the contention from the JREF-centric crowd is that the differences you point to -- the lack of symmetry, for example -- are, *at best*, irrelevant to the cause-and-effect analysis. They actually make the case for a collapse without explosives stronger.

Whether you agree or disagree with the end conclusion, is the argument at least laid out in a clear manner?

[Newtons Bit]

It would also help Mobertermy to actually read Bazant's paper (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf) for true understanding.

The details of the failure process after the decisive initial trigger that sets the upper part in motion are of course very complicated and their clarification would require large computer simulations. For example, the upper part of one tower is tilting as it begins to fall ~Appendix II!; the distribution of impact forces among the underlying columns of the framed tube and the core, and between the columns and the floor-supporting trusses, is highly nonuniform; etc. However, a computer is not necessary to conclude that the collapse of the majority of columns of one floor must have caused the whole tower to collapse. This may be demonstrated by the following elementary calculations, in which simplifying assumptions most optimistic in regard to survival are made.

I've hi-lighted the last sentence, which is the most important to the point Mobertermy does not understand. Bazant's paper is not suppose to exactly reflect reality. It's extremely difficult to compute exactly and he explains why. Bazant instead chooses to model a scenario that is most favorable to collapse prevention. This is what is known in engineering as enveloping.

[carlitos]

Well, I think that we have seen this act before, but I'll try again.

Are you able to answer this question?Do you understand that Bazant's idealized case is the best posible scenario for the towers and the actual events were more likely to result in a global collapse than Bazant's model?

Or this one?Bazant's model is a limiting case. It is used to envelope the problem. Do you know what that means?

Or this one?are you suggesting that an upper block that is not intact impacting an intact lower block is a best case scenario for collapse arrest?

"I agree with you" is not an answer to the above questions. "Yes" or "No" would be acceptable.

ETA - sorry for piling on. I'm on a boring conference call....

[Hokulele]

Edited for civility.



I will take one more try at this, but you have to help in return by answering the questions I put to you. As a start, do you understand what is meant by calculating the limiting conditions?

To do this with another analogy, let's say that someone comes up who claims that they were hit on the head by an icicle. There are several possibilities for how this could happen, but the two main categories of possibilities are it was a natural accident and it was a criminal act by another person. So the first thing we can do is to figure out if a natural accident is even possible in this case. We can do this by calculating the limiting conditions for icicle formation (0 degree weather would be one requirement).

If it can be shown that natural icicle formation is impossible, say that the incident took place outdoors in July in Honolulu, we know that by the limiting conditions it is far more likely that the icicle incident was an "inside job". If it can be shown that natural icicle formation is not only possible, but inevitable, then we do not need to leap to the "inside job" conclusion, especially when there is no evidence such a conclusion is warranted.

Please note, the icicle formation model doesn't have to mimic the real conditions exactly, if it is shown that icicles will happen at -5 degrees on a roof with a 4 in 12 pitch, you do not have to develop an entirely new model that shows they will form at -20 degrees with a roof pitch of 5 in 12.

Bazant's model is the -5 degree model and you are requesting the -20 degree model.

If you cant get that the OP's argument is inadvertently helping truthers you're hopeless.


It only helps those who do not want to listen to explanations. It is the sound-bite mentality that is helping CTists, not us.

[johnny karate]

Maybe because he explicitly says it looks alot like the WTC.

.. which he immediately follows with a qualifying statement that you seem hellbent on ignoring. I actually bolded it for you in my previous post.

Which is true of WTC7 but not true of 1 and 2. And no one has ever used Bazant to explain WTC 7 so I really dont see how the OP has made anything but a bad argument and the fact that you all have jumped on board to protect him mkaes me wonder exactly what type of group think is going on here.

Maybe what you view as "group think" is really other people's ability to comprehend something that seems to elude you.

[alienentity]

I agreed with you. Bazants model was right thats what Im going to use to argue against truthers. Thanks. What should I tell them when they point out that the top of the building isnt falling straight down but is toppling over?

That they fell asymmetrically outside their own footprints, totally unlike any CD.
Instead of having structure removed instantly across a whole floor or two, for example, they experienced initial collapse on one side, thus tilting in the process.

You also have repeated that the upper blocks were not intact, and that Bazant requires it. Both assumptions/interpretations are wrong - the upper blocks were, contrary to disingenuous truther myths, intact as far as we know when the collapses began, at least for a few seconds. By the time the collapses had progressed 2 or 3 seconds, the collapsing mass had grown in both mass and velocity, thus creating an even more destructive force.

ETA I addressed that point in this video:

AzTGMQcXP1Q

*The asymmetry is important because you had eccentric/asymmetrical loading of flanges, bolts and whatever other structure was being impacted - obviously not what the buildings were designed to withstand.
That they would fail is not really worth debating - they could do nothing else under those conditions, as explained by Bazant's limiting case, the NIST report and others.

Bazant doesn't require the buildings to look exactly like the model at all. That is just silly. As Newtons Bit has kindly pointed out about the limiting case.

So once you remove some of the influence of truther myths on the phrasing of your questions, they are not so difficult to answer. You probably don't realize where you're still buying into various truther assumptions, that's all.

I linked you to a different verinage video because it looks more like the WTC towers (tall and skinny) and, while deliberate, demonstrates the basic principles of Bazant's paper. The Balzac-Vitry demo of the OP is actually still an upper-block crush-down, so it doesn't demonstrate a lateral progressive collapse very well (WTC7).

For that, I recommend these ones, which show how failure in one area can lead to a global failure. Hope that helps. Good luck with your truther family members but don't be surprised if they ignore relevant evidence which contradicts their beliefs. It's similar to telling a Christian that their religion is based on a lot of mythology - pretty pointless, even if you're right. :)

tIsE8CkZI6U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIsE8CkZI6U

The second video mainly addresses the claims of the now-banned Heiwa that a small section failure couldn't cause a larger section to fail.

prwvj-npt5s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prwvj-npt5s

[jaydeehess]

And the planes crashing into the towers - that is what triggerred the chain of events leading to the fires in WTC7, and eventually the collapse of the building - were not "human intervention" ? :boggled:

I am sure the Jihadists would say something along the lines of that this was human intervention inspired by, and with the devine guiding hand of, Allah.

[twinstead]

Mobertermy, some of science involved in 911 IS complicated. Hell, I don't understand a lot of it myself. There's no reason to think that it's all smoke and mirrors because of it.

[Horatius]

What are models for? (thanks for not calling me a truther.)


They are for trying to understand reality in cases where actual reality is difficult or impossible to calculate directly. They will never correspond completely with reality, but for one with a mind willing to understand, they can still provide useful insights.

It's that "one with a mind willing to understand" part that eludes Truthers, and seems to be eluding you. However, I will also give it one more go, taking a slightly different tack from the others.


Look, all of you that are defending Bazant's model are missing one very simple fact. It requires an intact upper block. His model could basically be called the "intact upper block crushing straight down model." Without that intact upper block everything else meaningless.



The bolded part is right where you have made your error, and you compound that error by insisting that "Without that intact upper block everything else meaningless." I'll explain.

Bazant's model involves an intact upper block, which leads you to assume that it therefore requires an intact upper block. What everyone is trying to explain to you in asking about "limiting cases", is that, by understanding Bazant, we can come to some conclusions about events slightly diffferent from his limiting case of the intact upper block.

Bazant determined that, in the limiting case of the intact upper block, the impact had more than enough energy to collapse the lower structure, even in the case of a straight-down movement, that allowed the lower block to resist the impact with its maximum resistance. That "more than enough energy" is the key point.

Because there is more than enough energy, we know that at least some collapses, with less-than-totally-intact upper block could also cause a total collapse, even if they were to somehow follow the perfect straight-down path.

Also, because there is more than enough energy, we know that many impacts which do not follow the straight-down path will also cause a total collapse, as the lower structure will provide even less resistance in that case.

When we combine these two bits of understanding, we can conclude that there are several plausible scenarios in which a less-than-intact upper block, following a less-that perfectly-straight-down path, will also cause a total collapse. You could potentially argue that there are also potential such scenarios that wouldn't lead to such a collapse, but no truther has every shown proper calculations to show that any of these such cases are plausible or likely.

Having seen two such collapses, with different size upper blocks, and different degrees of tilt, and with no competing model to suggest that the observed collapses are impossible, we can conclude, from Bazant's paper, combined with an understanding of how the world works, that nothing more happened on 9/11 than what was to be expected.

Of course, if you lack a mind willing to understand, none of the above will make a bit of difference to you.

[jaydeehess]

I agreed with you. Bazants model was right thats what Im going to use to argue against truthers. Thanks. What should I tell them when they point out that the top of the building isnt falling straight down but is toppling over?

I would ask that Newton's Bit read this over and tell me if I have it basically correct...........

Despite the fact that the upper portion of the building is tilting it never gets a significant amount of its mass beyond the walls of the lower section. Thus the great bulk of the upper portion's mass is still above the lower portion of the structure. Why is this important?
Because that tilting movement, that is to say the amount of rotation per second, before initial collapse is pivoting about a 'hinge point' somewhere at the junction of the two sections. However at the moment that this 'hinge' fails and the upper section starts to drop, the angular momentum would now have it rotating about the upper section's center of mass and the center of mass is falling straight down, it is not moving sideways at all. Thus the great bulk of the mass of the upper section is still going to impact the lower section and the difference in time from the leading part of the upper section hitting the next floor down to the lagging side doing so is going to be less than half a second. That is where the only assymetrry that is significant comes from.

Imagine a big stationary wheel , you drop it and it falls straight down. Now imagine that same wheel rotating in space but with no lateral movement and if you drop it, it still falls straight down. It does not matter if you then take a 2X4 and have it rotate about its center of mass and then let it dro, it will also still drop straight down.

So, it is established that the great bulk of the mass of the upper section did in fact fall straight down, it has no choice absent a lateral force such as a wind. Tilt and drift are not the same thing, ask any sailor.

Now the mass in the verniage technique also falls onto the lower section. The biggest difference between this and the towers is where the mass impacts the lower section. In the case of the towers, specifically because of the initial tilt, the upper section mass is going to largely not be impinged upon the lower section's columns but on the floor space it first encounters. These floorspaces were designed to carry floor loads, NOT the load of a ten storey section of the structure. This ensures that, as Bazant made clear, that the floor collapses immediately having been completely overwhelmed by the dynamic load of the crushing mass. This mass then slows imperceptibly and builds even more velocity before impacting the next floor down.

lower section columns are left then with no lateral bracing over several levels and simply cannot survive without buckling under their own long column stresses let alone combined with buffeting by the falling debris.

After a few floors the entire upper section ahs come apart BUT its mass is moving even faster AND it is still subject to one driving force, gravity, that is still, and continues to this day to, acts in the direction we refer to as straight down.

yes there is some assymettry to all of this but once again the driving force makes the preferential direction of travel of any falling object the same thus one side of a floorspace may fail ahead of the opposite side(that's the assymettry) but the entire floorspace fails in pretty much the same fashion.

In fact it is likely that the so called squibs are evidence of this internal collapse happening in places a faster than the destruction of the perimeter walls(thus illustrating the assymettry in the last paragraph)

This is the basic sequence that Bazant uses except that he assumes a solid upper section. He does have the mass impacting the floorspace.

Truthers do not (and I again state I am not stating you are one) what NB's above referred to as enveloping a problem. It is setting the parameters for an approximation. this is to allow one to view the problem in a more basic form and not get bogged down in introducing other details such as an assymettric failing of the floors. So you pick the syymetric case and see what the math brings, you set the upper mass as a solid.

Truthers have argued, "oh its (the upper section) not solid, it will be coming apart". Bazant's model showed a 30 fold greater force on the floorspace than would be required to fail even a pristine, intact floor.
Truthers counter that they can easily take away some of the energy of the impact by using it to break apart the lower conticting parts of the uppers section but if they wish to introduce more deatil in this aspect then they should also introduce the detail that the next level down would have not been in pristine, intact condition having been involved in the initial impact and the subsequent fires. If the floor was already sagging it would offer much less ability to support a static load and even less ability to absorb a dynamic load.

Bazant showed then that there was much more force available to initiate a self propigating global collapse.

the verniage technique is different in detail but illustrates that even when the mass impacts the load carrying columns of a much stiffer masonry structure there is enough force available to initiate a self propigating global collapse.

[Newtons Bit]

I would ask that Newton's Bit read this over and tell me if I have it basically correct...........

Obligatory-almost-non-sequitur-Simpsons-reference: I was elected to lead. Not to read.

Despite the fact that the upper portion of the building is tilting it never gets a significant amount of its mass beyond the walls of the lower section. Thus the great bulk of the upper portion's mass is still above the lower portion of the structure. Why is this important?
Because that tilting movement, that is to say the amount of rotation per second, before initial collapse is pivoting about a 'hinge point' somewhere at the junction of the two sections. However at the moment that this 'hinge' fails and the upper section starts to drop, the angular momentum would now have it rotating about the upper section's center of mass and the center of mass is falling straight down, it is not moving sideways at all. Thus the great bulk of the mass of the upper section is still going to impact the lower section and the difference in time from the leading part of the upper section hitting the next floor down to the lagging side doing so is going to be less than half a second. That is where the only assymetrry that is significant comes from.

Imagine a big stationary wheel , you drop it and it falls straight down. Now imagine that same wheel rotating in space but with no lateral movement and if you drop it, it still falls straight down. It does not matter if you then take a 2X4 and have it rotate about its center of mass and then let it dro, it will also still drop straight down.

So, it is established that the great bulk of the mass of the upper section did in fact fall straight down, it has no choice absent a lateral force such as a wind. Tilt and drift are not the same thing, ask any sailor.

Now the mass in the verniage technique also falls onto the lower section. The biggest difference between this and the towers is where the mass impacts the lower section. In the case of the towers, specifically because of the initial tilt, the upper section mass is going to largely not be impinged upon the lower section's columns but on the floor space it first encounters. These floorspaces were designed to carry floor loads, NOT the load of a ten storey section of the structure. This ensures that, as Bazant made clear, that the floor collapses immediately having been completely overwhelmed by the dynamic load of the crushing mass. This mass then slows imperceptibly and builds even more velocity before impacting the next floor down.

lower section columns are left then with no lateral bracing over several levels and simply cannot survive without buckling under their own long column stresses let alone combined with buffeting by the falling debris.

After a few floors the entire upper section ahs come apart BUT its mass is moving even faster AND it is still subject to one driving force, gravity, that is still, and continues to this day to, acts in the direction we refer to as straight down.

yes there is some assymettry to all of this but once again the driving force makes the preferential direction of travel of any falling object the same thus one side of a floorspace may fail ahead of the opposite side(that's the assymettry) but the entire floorspace fails in pretty much the same fashion.

In fact it is likely that the so called squibs are evidence of this internal collapse happening in places a faster than the destruction of the perimeter walls(thus illustrating the assymettry in the last paragraph)

This is the basic sequence that Bazant uses except that he assumes a solid upper section. He does have the mass impacting the floorspace.

Truthers do not (and I again state I am not stating you are one) what NB's above referred to as enveloping a problem. It is setting the parameters for an approximation. this is to allow one to view the problem in a more basic form and not get bogged down in introducing other details such as an assymettric failing of the floors. So you pick the syymetric case and see what the math brings, you set the upper mass as a solid.

Truthers have argued, "oh its (the upper section) not solid, it will be coming apart". Bazant's model showed a 30 fold greater force on the floorspace than would be required to fail even a pristine, intact floor.
Truthers counter that they can easily take away some of the energy of the impact by using it to break apart the lower conticting parts of the uppers section but if they wish to introduce more deatil in this aspect then they should also introduce the detail that the next level down would have not been in pristine, intact condition having been involved in the initial impact and the subsequent fires. If the floor was already sagging it would offer much less ability to support a static load and even less ability to absorb a dynamic load.

Bazant showed then that there was much more force available to initiate a self propigating global collapse.

the verniage technique is different in detail but illustrates that even when the mass impacts the load carrying columns of a much stiffer masonry structure there is enough force available to initiate a self propigating global collapse.

You're correct for the most part :)

Here's a simpler way of looking at what Bazant did. There's two limiting cases:

1. The upper block is not intact and each individual floor of the lower block must resist the entire weight of the upper block.

2. The upper block is intact and the columns of the lower block can resist the impact of the upper block.

The first obviously (to anyone reading the Journal of Engineering Mechanics) results in a collapse. The second requires math to prove.

As far as your station wheel analogy goes, here's a picture to help illustrate:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1632947dbe85f60a84.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11262)

[bardamu]

When you show any interest in understanding what you're discussing please let us know. :\
The discussion is becoming rather pointless since you're making an argument based on a malformed understanding of what you're talking about.


When the debunkers run out of bogus arguments, their last resort is to tell their opponent he doesn't understand the issue or he's missing the point. It's a good sign and I'm pleased to say I get it all the time.


I agreed with you. Bazants model was right thats what Im going to use to argue against truthers. Thanks. What should I tell them when they point out that the top of the building isnt falling straight down but is toppling over?

Mobertermy, if you want see how reasonable people deal with these issues, try these sites:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm


And the planes crashing into the towers - that is what triggerred the chain of events leading to the fires in WTC7, and eventually the collapse of the building - were not "human intervention" ? :boggled:

I could answer this but it would be way off topic and there's already a thread on the subject.


I am sure the Jihadists would say something along the lines of that this was human intervention inspired by, and with the devine guiding hand of, Allah.

Stanley Praimneth believes his life was saved by God.

[BigAl]

When the debunkers run out of bogus arguments, their last resort is to tell their opponent he doesn't understand the issue or he's missing the point. It's a good sign and I'm pleased to say I get it all the time.


You don't show any sign of knowing any relevant engineering or science. That's got to be a handicap when people say sciency things.

[twinstead]

Stanley Praimneth believes his life was saved by God.

I wonder what he would think about a small, insignificant cult that thinks he's lying about his experiences on 9/11?

[Hokulele]

I must admit, that is the first time I have seen "Heiwa" and "reasonable people" used in the same post.

[alienentity]

I must admit, that is the first time I have seen "Heiwa" and "reasonable people" used in the same post.

What an oxymoron.;)

[johnny karate]

Mobertermy, if you want see how reasonable people deal with these issues...

Mobertermy, keep in mind bardamu believes the FDNY was complicit in a 9/11 inside job. I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not he has the capacity to determine who or what is reasonable.

[Hokulele]

I will say, if Mobertermy has a problem with Bazant's model of the Twin Towers, I can't wait to read his/her reaction to Heiwa's lemon/pizza box/sushi models of the Twin Towers.

[Horatius]

I will say, if Mobertermy has a problem with Bazant's model of the Twin Towers, I can't wait to read his/her reaction to Heiwa's lemon/pizza box/sushi models of the Twin Towers.



I always thought there was something fishy about his sushi model.

[Hokulele]

I always thought there was something fishy about his sushi model.


Is wasabi an incendiary or an explosive?

[Sam.I.Am]

Is wasabi an incendiary or an explosive?
Yes

[Horatius]

Is wasabi an incendiary or an explosive?

Yes



It's an incendiary that becomes an explosive. [/DickGage]

[alienentity]

It's an incendiary that becomes an explosive. [/DickGage]

Only NanoWasabi can do that. And silently..

[Horatius]

Only NanoWasabi can do that. And silently..




Well, of course us white guys will only ever use a nano-sized particle of wasabi!

[Mobertermy]

Despite my conviction that I am simply another hopeless social retard, I will make a stab at this.

I am not a mathy person or a science guy, so maybe I can help bridge the gap between you and the people spending time on this.

First, let's see if everyone is communicating. This is my lay understanding. Let me break this out into discrete steps and please tell me what you believe is incorrect or needs adjustment (open to anyone else who feels I am going wrong):

(1) Bazant was not creating a model for the Towers' collapse.
(2) Bazant was creating a model to test if a collapse would occur if an upper area were dropped straight onto the intact floors beneath.
(3) Bazant concluded a collapse would occur, even in those circumstances.
(4) The *actual* circumstances were even more favorable for collapse than his model.
(5) Whether "intact" or not, a large volume of stuff was dropped onto lower floors.
(6) Whether "symmetrical" or not, a large volume of stuff was dropped onto lower floors
(7) The fact that the load was not dropped straight down onto the supporting members below it actually made the collapse more likely by stressing weaker elements.

As for the video and the non-explosive demolition,

(8) it provides some support for Bazant's theoretical work, in that it does successfully show explosives and thermite were not necessary to cause a collapse under similar (though not identical) circumstances.



Are we together so far? If so, the contention from the JREF-centric crowd is that the differences you point to -- the lack of symmetry, for example -- are, *at best*, irrelevant to the cause-and-effect analysis. They actually make the case for a collapse without explosives stronger.

Whether you agree or disagree with the end conclusion, is the argument at least laid out in a clear manner?

1) Ok
2) That's my biggest problem. The upper block on 911 does not drop straight onto the lower block. Bazants theory is like communism...might look good on paper, not alot of real world value.
3) OK
4) Except that number 2 is not in effect so his theory has no application whatsoever to the real world events of that day.
5) Intact vs not intact matters. I'd rather someone drop fifty punds of sand on my head than a fifty pound lead ball. On 911 upper portion doesnt appear intact.
6) But Bazant said it was symmetrical didnt he?
7) See 6.
8) Key features of Bazants theory are missing though. This is a necessary ingredient if I am not mistaken: Intact upper block crushing straight down. Thats not just something irrelevant.

[Mobertermy]

You are aware that what you bolded was a visual debunk of a CD that was itself a CD.

[Mobertermy]

Lets try this:

Bazant's model shows that under the best of circumstances, That being a column end on column end impact,. That the towers could not arrest collapse.

Truthers theorize, that you could drop an intact upper section on an intact lower section. (From 2 miles up in banned forum member "heiwas" case) and the collapse would immediately arrest

The OP shows an example of collapse from an intact upper section impacting an intact and not weakened lower section.


Therefore: Bazant limiting case model proven correct.

You are missing two things. Bazant said upper section would crush straight down. Said upper section was intact. I am not saying bazants model is wrong. I'm saying it has no application to what happened on 911 since those two elements were missing. The OP shows an intact upper block crushing straight down therefore Bazant limit case model proven correct. WTC on 911 shows not-intact upper portion that isnt crushing straight down. Therefore: Bazant model has no application to 911.

[alienentity]

You are aware that what you bolded was a visual debunk of a CD that was itself a CD.

Your evidence that the collapses were symmetrical is from a comment made in one of Bazant's papers?

And what does it mean to you?

[triforcharity]

This technique is still a controlled demolition though. I don't see how its disproving anything the troofers say about buildings only collapsing symmetrically by CD. You haven't proved Bazant was right. Bazant said that 911 occured without CD. The building you show occured with CD. Don't worry this doesn't mean 911 was an inside job, but this by no means shows "bazant was right."

This doesn't look like a steel building either.

Actually, it does prove 9/11 was not an inside job, and that explosives were not used. At all.

Their argument is that there is no way that the top portion of a building could possibly crush the bottom section of a building without explosives being involved.

Well, the Verniage (sp?) technique proves that it CAN happen using just the weight of the building.

Now, you mention concrete. Good point. Concrete is mucher stronger than a steel building in general. Why do you think they make most buildings in Florida out of concrete? Because its very strong, and resists outside forces well.

So, in conclusion, it proves that it can be done without explosives, with just the weight of the building. No explosives needed.

PS. They didn't fund huge hydrolic pumps and rams in the TT's, so we caan conclusively rule that out.

[Mobertermy]

Are you honestly asking me what the word symmetrical means? Look it up online if you dont know the meaning.

[Slayhamlet]

You are aware that what you bolded was a visual debunk of a CD that was itself a CD.

You are aware that no explosives were used in that demolition. You are aware that no massive hydraulic pumps were found in the debris pile.

I think we can stop pretending this guy isn't a "Truther", now.

[Mobertermy]

So flying planes into building will produce the exact same results as the vernage method.

[triforcharity]

When I look at the footage of WTC I dont see an intact upper block crushing straight down like I see in the verinage video...do you?

Yes. Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

The top section was supported by the middle section. When the middle section gave way, where did the top section go?

Down.

For the love of the Flying Spagetti Monster.... Why does all this horse**** sound so framilliar???

[Mobertermy]

So anyone that disagrees with your preposterous conclusions is a truther?

[Mobertermy]

Have you ever looked at the footage? Its not going straight down. Its tipping over.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Its tipping over.

There's a farm with cows for that!

[Redtail]

So flying planes into building will produce the exact same results as the vernage method.

If by "exact same" you mean "can cause the building to collapse" then yes.

[Slayhamlet]

Are you honestly asking me what the word symmetrical means? Look it up online if you dont know the meaning.

Seeing as how there was a demonstrable tilt of the upper block, the collapse was clearly not symmetrical in any meaningful way. But forget that. Can you tell us what the implications of the towers' collapse being supposedly symmetrical are? I'm under the impression that it's just a Truther canard thrown out there to ************ people into thinking there is something out of the ordinary about the collapses as if symmetry were somehow abnormal. Prove me wrong.

[Mobertermy]

There's a farm with cows for that!

lol

[Slayhamlet]

So anyone that disagrees with your preposterous conclusions is a truther?

What are my preposterous conclusions, truther?

[Mobertermy]

If by "exact same" you mean "can cause the building to collapse" then yes.

I agree that flying the planes into the building caused them to collapse. I dont believe they exaclty replicate the vernage method and I dont think Bazants model has much pertinence to what actually occured if you look at the way they fell.

[Slayhamlet]

I agree that flying the planes into the building caused them to collapse. I dont believe they exaclty replicate the vernage method and I dont think Bazants model has much pertinence to what actually occured if you look at the way they fell.

Yes, we understand that you wilfully misrepresent the purpose of Bazant's paper, which was not to replicate the collapses.

How 'bout actually reading it and following the calculations instead of relying upon the interpretations of known fraudsters with a twisted agenda to push?

[Mobertermy]

Oh, so now I "wilfully misrepresented" it because I disagree with you? What is wrong with you. I thought I was making a simple point and all of a sudden I have ten people attacking me...is this forum some kind of cult or something?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

This forum has it's share of..........I just can't say it!

[Newtons Bit]

Mobertermy is trolling. Whether or not he is a truther is another matter. He has been explained why Bazant model is not supposed to be identical to the events on 911. He has been shown Bazant's own words from his paper on said model why this is done.

He has ignored those explanations. He's not here to learn, he's here to cause trouble. Stop interacting with him.

[A W Smith]

You are missing two things. Bazant said upper section would crush straight down. Said upper section was intact. I am not saying bazants model is wrong.
he said neither, he said IF, do you not understand what a limiting case is?

I'm saying it has no application to what happened on 911 since those two elements were missing.

so you are saying that what actually happened, the tilt, and top section not being fully intact. was least favorable? or more favorable to collapse arrest??? The OP shows an intact upper block crushing straight down therefore Bazant limit case model proven correct. WTC on 911 shows not-intact upper portion that isnt crushing straight down. Therefore: Bazant model has no application to 911.

so was what happened on 911, more favorable? or less favorable to collapse arrest than Bazants limiting case model? and please stop dancing around this question by simply hand waving it off by claiming "it doesn't apply" because it does..

[Horatius]

He has ignored those explanations. He's not here to learn, he's here to cause trouble. Stop interacting with him.



Exactly right. Notice he completely ignores my point about the "mind willing to understand", and my explanation of how Bazant's model is relevant to 9/11. No reason at all for someone really interested in the question to ignore those points.

Time to give up, his Mark of Woo is glowing.

[Tricky]

Some very uncivil posts deleted. Stay on topic and do not make personal attacks. Remember that you must address the topic, not the person making it and this includes posts that are nothing but speculation about a member's motives. That is considered a Rule 12 violation.

[Mobertermy]

Okay, how about this since you all appear to think I'm not here to understand...you give me a link or page that will explain Bazants paper and how it is supposed to be understood in relation to 911 and I'll go read it.

[carlitos]

1) I'd rather someone drop fifty punds of sand on my head than a fifty pound lead ball.
Why is that?

[Mobertermy]

Wouldnt the sand be more diffuse?

[jaydeehess]

Stanley Praimneth believes his life was saved by God.

I did not say that I believed in God, only that the Jihadists did.

Thank you for illustrating that both they and Stanley believe, as OT as this line of thought is.

[Slayhamlet]

Okay, how about this since you all appear to think I'm not here to understand...you give me a link or page that will explain Bazants paper and how it is supposed to be understood in relation to 911 and I'll go read it.

Just read the paper (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf)

[carlitos]

Wouldnt the sand be more diffuse?

So?

[A W Smith]

again

<

or

>

????

Will you be answering my question in the post above (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5413742&postcount=147)?

[carlitos]

Just read the paper (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf)

Seconded. It's 5 or 6 pages. What in the world is the problem?

[Mobertermy]

I have read the paper. My comments so far have been my interpretation of that which are according to you are wrong.

[carlitos]

If you read the paper, why can't you answer these simple questions?
Originally Posted by Hokulele
Do you understand that Bazant's idealized case is the best posible scenario for the towers and the actual events were more likely to result in a global collapse than Bazant's model?

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit
Bazant's model is a limiting case. It is used to envelope the problem. Do you know what that means?

Originally Posted by A W Smith
are you suggesting that an upper block that is not intact impacting an intact lower block is a best case scenario for collapse arrest?

[Furcifer]

Okay, how about this since you all appear to think I'm not here to understand...you give me a link or page that will explain Bazants paper and how it is supposed to be understood in relation to 911 and I'll go read it.

I see Slay posted a link.

There's going to be a test afterward to see if you were paying attention OK? Just a little test, some physics, some logic questions, nothing too hard. Take your time and feel free to ask questions if you have any.

[TexasJack]

I think he's looking for CliffsNotes.

[jaydeehess]

Wouldnt the sand be more diffuse?

Well a 50 pound solid object such as a lead ball would impart a greater impulse force. That is to say it would transfer its momentum in less time than the 50 pounds of sand. However if your neck could not withstand the load of 50 pounds of static load it would make little difference whether you were hit by the sand or the ball, with the added dynamic load your neck would snap quickly.
On the other hand you are a more solid object than the lower portion of the towers were. That is to say you have less gas filled spaces.

Secondly, in the case of the towers we have this rather coarse 'sand' impacting the floors within the confines of the perimter walls. We have a situation somewhat akin to dropping a load of 'sand' into a milk carton. Pour it in slowly and the carton will bulge but hold. Drop it in quickly and the carton will likely fail and split.

[Slayhamlet]

I have read the paper. My comments so far have been my interpretation of that which are according to you are wrong.

Did you miss this?

The details of the failure process after the decisive initial trigger
that sets the upper part in motion are of course very complicated
and their clarification would require large computer simulations.
For example, the upper part of one tower is tilting as it begins to
fall (Appendix II); the distribution of impact forces among the
underlying columns of the framed tube and the core, and between
the columns and the floor-supporting trusses, is highly nonuniform;
etc. However, a computer is not necessary to conclude that
the collapse of the majority of columns of one floor must have
caused the whole tower to collapse. This may be demonstrated by
the following elementary calculations, in which simplifying assumptions
most optimistic in regard to survival are made.

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. 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≈71GN/m (due to unavailability
of precise data, an approximate design of column
cross sections had to be carried out for this purpose)

[Furcifer]

I think he's looking for CliffsNotes.

I loaned them to Tony to make a photocopy, but never got them back. :D

Like 3 story steel exterior and core columns through the hourglass, so to our the days of our lives.

I'm not sure if sand and building debris in the form of 4 ton sections are really that good of an analogy. This always seems to come up and the basic physics is lost on some people.

Has anyone ever come up with an idiot proof analogy?

[Hokulele]

Hey, we can always haul out the video of the excavator dumping a load of water on a car again.

[triforcharity]

That was fun!

Here you go!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM9FeEgI0Eo

Someone please embed this please. Thanks.

[Furcifer]

You might just push NB over the edge linking that one.

[Newtons Bit]

You might just push NB over the edge linking that one.

Wut?

[Newtons Bit]

I have read the paper. My comments so far have been my interpretation of that which are according to you are wrong.

Your interpretation has been repeatedly shown to be false. You have repeatedly ignored explanations of what Bazant has done. You have ignored quotes of Bazant explaining what he has done.

Please stop acting like a troll.

[carlitos]

Hey, we can always haul out the video of the excavator dumping a load of water on a car again.

Really, I think that this is the problem. If someone on the 'truth' bandwagon sees water cutting steel, they are simply unable to relate it to 'aluminium wings cutting steel' and so on. These folks have (to paraphrase tfk) a flawed epistemology. They can't answer simple questions, can't reason. It bums me out.

[Hokulele]

Really, I think that this is the problem. If someone on the 'truth' bandwagon sees water cutting steel, they are simply unable to relate it to 'aluminium wings cutting steel' and so on. These folks have (to paraphrase tfk) a flawed epistemology. They can't answer simple questions, can't reason. It bums me out.


Agreed. Thank goodness that same lack keeps the vast majority of them out of the design industries.

[Slayhamlet]

That was fun!

Here you go!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM9FeEgI0Eo

Someone please embed this please. Thanks.

FM9FeEgI0Eo

It's incredibly easy to embed YouTube videos. You just place the video ID of the YouTube video you want between tags. The video ID is the string of characters after watch?v= in the URL of the video page.

For example, the above video was embedded with the following code: FM9FeEgI0Eo

[triforcharity]

Thanks Slay! I can NEVER get it to work for me.

[Furcifer]

Wut?

Deja vu-vu-vu.

Perhaps I spoke out of turn. If I see the same pics again I might come totally unglued. Then again I'm already a little unglued.

[Newtons Bit]

Deja vu-vu-vu.

Perhaps I spoke out of turn. If I see the same pics again I might come totally unglued. Then again I'm already a little unglued.

Oh. I thought you were making a vague sexual innuendo implying that something like that would really turn me on. I mean come on, I'm not that desperate. It hasn't been that long since I've had a girlfriend, has it?

[ElMondoHummus]

Mother of God... I just read through the second page of this thread. We have yet another guy who doesn't understand that Bazant never claimed his model reflected the real world? We have yet another genius who cannot understand the concept of "if it can happen in this case, it can happen in all other lesser cases"? Again?

[Newtons Bit]

Mother of God... I just read through the second page of this thread. We have yet another guy who doesn't understand that Bazant never claimed his model reflected the real world? We have yet another genius who cannot understand the concept of "if it can happen in this case, it can happen in all other lesser cases"? Again?

You're so quick to assume that they are two different people. I'm a skeptic. All new posters are socks of old ones until proven otherwise.

[beachnut]

... gravity is the primary energy source for the WTC 1, 2, 7 demise and CD.
The WTC gravity collapses do not look like CD, CD looks like a gravity collapse.

Intact vs not intact matters. I'd rather someone drop fifty punds of sand on my head than a fifty pound lead ball. On 911 upper portion doesnt appear intact.
... classic, "failed to take physics" statement made before you are smashed by sand and lead ball for good measure.

Why not opt for a bale of hay, or feathers that weighs 50 pounds. ... avoiding science?

Intact u might miss, not intact means a better foot print to smash things more, not just put a hole through the target.

Models? Intact? It is a model! However; a good dry humor session is always appreciated as the "I-am-not-a-truther-but-could-be-a-sock" winter attack first wave hits JREF in time for Christmas and the holiday season.
I almost cut off some skin with the pressure washer, can't imagine letting 50 pounds of water from the pressure washer hit me on the head!
B2ws4dsAahM Water boarding for CARS! Confess early and often!

[ElMondoHummus]

You're so quick to assume that they are two different people. I'm a skeptic. All new posters are socks of old ones until proven otherwise.

I'm afraid the sarcasm I intended when I italicized the words "another" and ended with "Again?" was a bit too subtle. Yes, I'm aware of how few actually "new" people there are who defend conspiracy fantasy. And I'm equally aware of the lines of argument certain repeat offenders take. What I was trying to do was be sarcastic and ironic. Looks like I failed. Sorry. :(

[Hokulele]

I'm afraid the sarcasm I intended when I italicized the words "another" and ended with "Again?" was a bit too subtle. Yes, I'm aware of how few actually "new" people there are who defend conspiracy fantasy. And I'm equally aware of the lines of argument certain repeat offenders take. What I was trying to do was be sarcastic and ironic. Looks like I failed. Sorry. :(


As penance, you must explain, accurately and succintly, why the towers didn't topple over like a tree.

Go!

[ElMondoHummus]

As penance, you must explain, accurately and succintly, why the towers didn't topple over like a tree.

Go!

Because... they... weren't... trees?

Did I win? :D

[Hokulele]

Well, you did keep everything under three syllables.

[CORed]

I agreed with you. Bazants model was right thats what Im going to use to argue against truthers. Thanks. What should I tell them when they point out that the top of the building isnt falling straight down but is toppling over?

Tell them it doesn't *********** matter.

[beachnut]

As penance, you must explain, accurately and succintly, why the towers didn't topple over like a tree.

Go!
Towers are not trees. (Towers r knot trees)

Tallest tree is 331 feet, the towers were 1300 feet. You can get 3.31 feet of your tape measure to topple over, but 13 feet will not stand the lean. Simple modeling. Got models?

Towers were 95 percent air, trees are 20 to 50% water and 50 to 53 percent cellulose. I have no idea why water and cellulose like to remain rigid, but 30 foot steel sections connected to other 30 foot sections don't.

The towers were not built in Toontown.

[Hokulele]

I have no idea why water and cellulose like to remain rigid...


*Must. Not. Make. Off-color. Comment.*

;)

[Furcifer]

You're so quick to assume that they are two different people. I'm a skeptic. All new posters are socks of old ones until proven otherwise.

See if I was making vague sexual innuendo I'd say something about this being the place for socks.

[TruthersLie]

This technique is still a controlled demolition though. I don't see how its disproving anything the troofers say about buildings only collapsing symmetrically by CD. You haven't proved Bazant was right. Bazant said that 911 occured without CD. The building you show occured with CD. Don't worry this doesn't mean 911 was an inside job, but this by no means shows "bazant was right."

This doesn't look like a steel building either.

Mober.

1. The building isn't a steel framed building.
2. But many of the twoofs arguments revolve around the little part C cannot crush down the bigger part A. EVER. We had a poster here who kept on yammering about that. He even said (rather idiotically) that if you took the smaller top part C and dropped it from 2 miles up it wouldn't crushdown the lower part in ANY BUILDING TYPE.
3. What the verinage technique shows is that if you remove the support for only one floor the smaller part C can crushdown the larger part A. This shows that once the collapse starts it will not be arrested.

Which means that Bazant was right in that once a collapse starts in a certain type of building, it will progress and continue to the ground.

This is also a demonstration of several other truther talking points.
1. squibs... there are no CD charges involved, but we seee similar "squibs" to the wtc towers...
2. the huge cloud of dust and debris which truthers call pyroclastic clouds...

[TruthersLie]

In the case of WTC we have an asymmetrical top section smashing down to cause a symmetrical collapse. Hope this helps.

Umm that isn't what happened.

none of the collapses were symmetrical. we have asymmetrical drops and asymmetrical collapses of all three buildings.

In the towers we can see in slowed down video that the collapse was on different floors at slightly different times, so air would come out of one floor on ONE side of the building a second faster than the OTHER side of the building.

as for wtc7, it wasn't symmetrical in that it hit 2 adjacent buildings on opposite sides, and it had the easter mechanical penthouse collapse first... that isn't symmetry, but it is a truther LIE.

[TruthersLie]

I haven't moved the goalposts at all. Bazant claims that we have an upper block crushing down on the lower structure. Thats what we see here with the verinage, but that is not the case with WTC. Its that simple.

Thank you for coming fully out and demonstrating your twoof.

I love it when twoofs come here and say "i'm not a twoof," and then in 5 posts put out the full twoof.

which sock are you?

[TruthersLie]

The problem with his idealized case is that it has an ideal upper block that is crushing straight down. Anyone can watch the WTC collapse and see that the reality has nothing to do with Bazant's ideal. You can also watch the verinage technigue and see that the idealized intact upper block crushing down symmetrically is there. I didn't know that if I disagreed with Bazant's idealized case that would all of a sudden make me a troofer.

The problem you seem to be missing (maybe on purpose?) is that Bazant was a LIMITING case of what would happen IN THE BEST CIRCUMSTANCES. And guess what, even in the BEST circumstances, once the collapse started it was going to collapse fully and to the ground.

[Edx]

Absolutely, if the floors fail in a certain way. Is the building in this video a steel structure though?

I dont know and I dont see why it matters.Gage doesn't specify, because he knows he would be pulling it out of his arse.

The verinage demolitions don't prove the towers werent demolished but it does prove that...

1. Gage's indicators of "explosive demolition" are nonsense. Since you get all those same effects without explosives. It shows that those effects are all what you would expect if the top part of a building crushes itself.

2. It shows that the truth movements claim that NIST should have modelled the rest of the collapse is without basis. All they needed to do is show how it started because as these videos show as soon as the top is off centre it will plummet down through the rest of the structure, it is not going to fall off or fall over like a tree.

3. As an aside not technically related to verinage is all indicators of a real explosive demoltiion that we dont see in the WTC to add to the reason why Gage's indicators are wrong, eg. Loud explosions.

Logically then after this you can argue it was still a demolition, you just cant use these arguments.

If you want to say thermite caused the floors to fail, thats still valid. If you want to say they used Crackamite thats still valid. If you want to say they pulled the floors with cables thats still valid*.

(*However when I say its valid I only mean logically after dealing with what verinage demonstrates, it says nothing about how valid these claims are when evaluated on their own )

[bardamu]

Yes, we understand that you wilfully misrepresent the purpose of Bazant's paper, which was not to replicate the collapses.

Eight years after the events, you shouldn't need to depend on a limiting case study. There should be enough papers by now that do replicate the collapses.


Mober.

1. The building isn't a steel framed building.
2. But many of the twoofs arguments revolve around the little part C cannot crush down the bigger part A. EVER. We had a poster here who kept on yammering about that. He even said (rather idiotically) that if you took the smaller top part C and dropped it from 2 miles up it wouldn't crushdown the lower part in ANY BUILDING TYPE.
3. What the verinage technique shows is that if you remove the support for only one floor the smaller part C can crushdown the larger part A. This shows that once the collapse starts it will not be arrested

THC was a limiting case scenario. Even if you'd managed to win the challenge (which you didn't), you'd still have to show that the same could happen to a steel structure.



none of the collapses were symmetrical. we have asymmetrical drops and asymmetrical collapses of all three buildings.

In the towers we can see in slowed down video that the collapse was on different floors at slightly different times, so air would come out of one floor on ONE side of the building a second faster than the OTHER side of the building.

Splitting hairs much?



Why not opt for a bale of hay, or feathers that weighs 50 pounds. ... avoiding science?

I'll opt for a bale of hay with the strings cut, or 50 pounds of loose feathers.


Really, I think that this is the problem. If someone on the 'truth' bandwagon sees water cutting steel, they are simply unable to relate it to 'aluminium wings cutting steel' and so on. These folks have (to paraphrase tfk) a flawed epistemology. They can't answer simple questions, can't reason. It bums me out.

Does your epistemology lead you to believe the planes had water-jets on the leading edge of the wings?


What I was trying to do was be sarcastic and ironic. Looks like I failed. Sorry. :(

Leave that to the experts!

[TruthersLie]

Look, all of you that are defending Bazant's model are missing one very simple fact. It requires an intact upper block. His model could basically be called the "intact upper block crushing straight down model." Without that intact upper block everything else meaningless. Thats why the verinage video supports Bazant...there is an intact upper block. But there was no intact upper block on 911. This is a simple point and I really hope you people aren't arguing against truthers using Bazants model as "proof" they are wrong because anyone can easily verify for themselves that Bazants model explains nothing on 911. If you are using Bazants model this would give the impression that there is no counter argument against truthers. See how it is coounter productive?

You are wrong about this.

Bazants first model shows that once the collapse began it would continue, NO MATTER WHAT.

even under the BEST situation, it would still crush down to the ground.

That was the purpose of Bazants first model and first paper on the subject.

It is rather simple. What part of that do you not understand?

[NutCracker]

Eight years after the events, you shouldn't need to depend on a limiting case study. There should be enough papers by now that do replicate the collapses.
!

One hundred years and no attempt to replicate the sinking of the Titanic! OMG.. OMG.. I just found undeniable proof that the sinking of the Titanic was an inside jobby-job! OMG! OMG!

On ignore another dense, ignorant, arrogant delusional fool goes!

[TruthersLie]

Oh, so now I "wilfully misrepresented" it because I disagree with you? What is wrong with you. I thought I was making a simple point and all of a sudden I have ten people attacking me...is this forum some kind of cult or something?

You have 10 people telling you that you are not understanding what the paper was about.

It was not to accurately reflect what happened on 9/11. It was to show that under the BEST circumstances (with intact, end on end column collisions) that it would still collapse.

So when you take into account that the towers tipped and did not descend end on end, it shows you that once collapse was started it would progress.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

[TruthersLie]

Wouldnt the sand be more diffuse?

Sure it would be slightly more diffuse.

Kind of like this water. I mean it is only water... it shouldn't do anything to the car.

FI7BHSOVtMs

Let me know if you can see how just water destroyed the car... so would "just debris/just rubble" do things to the towers?

ETA: DAMN... people beat me to it.

[TruthersLie]

Eight years after the events, you shouldn't need to depend on a limiting case study. There should be enough papers by now that do replicate the collapses.



There are only about 80 peer reviewed engineering journal article which suppor the common narrative... and the NIST reports and the FEMA reports..

after 8 years how many do you twoofs have (in any language) which say the common narrative is wrong?


THC was a limiting case scenario. Even if you'd managed to win the challenge (which you didn't), you'd still have to show that the same could happen to a steel structure.


THC had about a half dozen people proposed examples which beat it. Try again. Massive fail twoof.


I'll opt for a bale of hay with the strings cut, or 50 pounds of loose feathers.


Oh pretty please. Go ahead and make a video of 50 lbs of hay falling on your head from a foot up. I'd love to see it.

[triforcharity]

TL, advocating thata someone hurt themselves on purpose could be a violation of your MA. But, the comedy that would ensue if there were a YouTube video of that would be mind boggling!! :D

[Mobertermy]

From Bazant: "(in theory, if people could have escaped from the upper part of the tower, the bottom part of the tower could have been saved if the upper part were bombed, exploded or weakened by some "smart" structure mechanism to collapse onto the lower part gradually as a pile of rubble, instead of impacting it instantly as an almost rigid body)." Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't this mean the upper portion must remain intact (like a lead ball) and not diffuse (like sand).

- Trutherslie: Correct me if I'm wrong...didn't you just get done saying that it could be rubble. So are you disagreeing with Bazant?

[Grizzly Bear]

Mother of God... I just read through the second page of this thread. We have yet another guy who doesn't understand that Bazant never claimed his model reflected the real world? We have yet another genius who cannot understand the concept of "if it can happen in this case, it can happen in all other lesser cases"? Again?
And I had a feeling after initially following the discussion that it would end up this way :\ I hinted at it...

I've constantly reminded people who have difficulty understanding what Bazant's writing was about to look up what a limiting case entails. The fact that the collapses were under much worse circumstances than what Bazant includes in his model should be the biggest indicator that his overall conclusion that the collapse would have progressed anyway was correct. Of course some people have been reminded of this numerous times and still can't grasp the concept. Let's see if this is the case for you after the patient attempts of several others to help you...

Moberty, unless you get it through your head what a limiting case is, this discussion can't go anywhere else. We can try to help you figure this out, but you need to comprehend it, and despite attempts to make the matter simple it still eludes you. Moreover, you don't seem to care that it eludes you, in which case I'm not sure why you're seeking help in this thread to begin with.

[triforcharity]

Why don't you understand this??

50 pounds of sand, and 50 pounds of lead STILL EQUAL 50 POUNDS!!!

For instance,

My deck around my pool can hold 150 lbs PSF. If I put 150 pounds of sand, or 150 lbs of bricks on one square foot, it is still at its maximum capacity.

50 lbs = 50 lbs EVERY TIME.

[Travis]

From Bazant: "(in theory, if people could have escaped from the upper part of the tower, the bottom part of the tower could have been saved if the upper part were bombed, exploded or weakened by some "smart" structure mechanism to collapse onto the lower part gradually as a pile of rubble, instead of impacting it instantly as an almost rigid body)." Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't this mean the upper portion must remain intact (like a lead ball) and not diffuse (like sand).

- Trutherslie: Correct me if I'm wrong...didn't you just get done saying that it could be rubble. So are you disagreeing with Bazant?

No. What it means is that if you were to disintegrate the top portion in pieces allowing the lower structure to arrest one piece before letting the next one fall that the overall dynamic load would be diminished. Think of it as the difference between dropping a 50 pound bag of sand on you and dropping ten 5 pound bags of sand on you one at a time.

As to limiting models. Suppose two cars impact head on while both are going 70mph and one explodes in a huge fireball. Now someone thinks the fireball wasn't the result of the collision. So you go out and impact two cars, of the same type, at 30mph and the one still explodes. Are you seriously going to argue that at 70mph the car is less likely to explode?

[Mobertermy]

Why don't you understand this??

50 pounds of sand, and 50 pounds of lead STILL EQUAL 50 POUNDS!!!

For instance,

My deck around my pool can hold 150 lbs PSF. If I put 150 pounds of sand, or 150 lbs of bricks on one square foot, it is still at its maximum capacity.

50 lbs = 50 lbs EVERY TIME.


Yes, I know it still is 50 pounds. We are talking about Bazant and his model and as far as I can tell he explicitly states whether the upper portion is intact (or "rigid" to use his term) or diffuse. Have you read his paper? Did you read this part:
"(in theory, if people could have escaped from the upper part of the tower, the bottom part of the tower could have been saved if the upper part were bombed, exploded or weakened by some "smart" structure mechanism to collapse onto the lower part gradually as a pile of rubble, instead of impacting it instantly as an almost rigid body). "

Please stay on topic. We are duiscussing Bazant's hypothesis not your swimming pool. it appears to me you also disagree with Bazant.

[Newtons Bit]

And now Mobertermy is ignoring the direct explanations by Bazant at the beginning of his paper and instead misunderstanding items in the appendix so he doesn't have to admit he was wrong.

Amazing!

[Mobertermy]

And now Mobertermy is ignoring the direct explanations by Bazant at the beginning of his paper and instead misunderstanding items in the appendix so he doesn't have to admit he was wrong.

Amazing!


Oh yeah, you want to tell me what exactly I am misunderstanding...

[Newtons Bit]

Oh yeah, you want to tell me what exactly I am misunderstanding...

Try reading all the posts by myself and others in this very thread that you've ignored. Try reading the first page of Bazant's paper, which has been quoted for you multiple times. In it Bazant states that his paper is not predicated upon exactly replicating reality but seeks to envelope the solution of an extremely complex problem that cannot be solved with a few pages of a paper.

The current item you are misunderstanding is that the appendix you're reading makes the assumption that the towers were hit further up. There's also an important qualifier in Bazant's explanation, "might".

[triforcharity]

Yes, I know it still is 50 pounds. We are talking about Bazant and his model and as far as I can tell he explicitly states whether the upper portion is intact (or "rigid" to use his term) or diffuse. Have you read his paper? Did you read this part:
"(in theory, if people could have escaped from the upper part of the tower, the bottom part of the tower could have been saved if the upper part were bombed, exploded or weakened by some "smart" structure mechanism to collapse onto the lower part gradually as a pile of rubble, instead of impacting it instantly as an almost rigid body). "

Please stay on topic. We are duiscussing Bazant's hypothesis not your swimming pool. it appears to me you also disagree with Bazant.

And it appears to me as though you have a case of cranial rectal inversion.

I have never, or will never, agree that Bazant et al. is wrong. You see, I have read the report. I have read many others also. Including NIST's report on 7WTC, and most of what was written on the TT's. Also, the FEMA BPR, and a few others.

I am not an engineer, but I do understand some engineering lingo. Aparently you do not.

My advice? Listen to what the ENGINEERS and SCIENTISTS have to say on this forum. They are much more knowledgeable than you or I. That is why when they try to explain something, I pay attention. Its free, you dont have to pay anything.

[Horatius]

From Bazant: "(in theory, if people could have escaped from the upper part of the tower, the bottom part of the tower could have been saved if the upper part were bombed, exploded or weakened by some "smart" structure mechanism to collapse onto the lower part gradually as a pile of rubble, instead of impacting it instantly as an almost rigid body)." Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't this mean the upper portion must remain intact (like a lead ball) and not diffuse (like sand).

- Trutherslie: Correct me if I'm wrong...didn't you just get done saying that it could be rubble. So are you disagreeing with Bazant?



What part of the observed collapse was "gradual"?

[carlitos]

And I had a feeling after initially following the discussion that it would end up this way :\ I hinted at it...

Well, I think that we have seen this act before...
Some posters are just so willfully obtuse that they can't hide the Truth for very long.

Mobertermy, my advice to you is to print this thread and the 6-page Bazant article. Walk away from the computer, grab a highlighter and find the important bits. A hint - theoretical qualifiers about what coulda shoulda woulda happened in some gradual collapse to dissapate the energy in the appendix of the Bazant piece are NOT the important part. Don't highlight those. Then take a look at what everyone is saying to you here, and see if you understand it better. If you want to understand it, that is.

[TruthersLie]

From Bazant: "(in theory, if people could have escaped from the upper part of the tower, the bottom part of the tower could have been saved if the upper part were bombed, exploded or weakened by some "smart" structure mechanism to collapse onto the lower part gradually as a pile of rubble, instead of impacting it instantly as an almost rigid body)." Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't this mean the upper portion must remain intact (like a lead ball) and not diffuse (like sand).

- Trutherslie: Correct me if I'm wrong...didn't you just get done saying that it could be rubble. So are you disagreeing with Bazant?

Thank you twoof for dropping the pretense.

I am saying that your reading for comprehension sucks. Bazant's first paper is a LIMITING paper. It takes the BEST CASE SCENERIO and still shows that once the collapse started it was a done deal.

Your reading for comprehension fails again (which is normal for twoofs). The most important part there is the GRADUAL impacts...There were NO gradual impacts of smaller debris.

like the example already given to you about taking a milk carton and slowly filling it with sand, vs dropping the full volume of the container of sand into it in an instant.

What part of GRADUAL do you not understand? The GRA or the DUAL?

[TruthersLie]

Oh yeah, you want to tell me what exactly I am misunderstanding...

Yea...
the gradually part...

Again, for the example go back and watch the video of your diffuse water crushing a car...

I mean it is only water right?

You missed that part. Go to dictionary.com and look up GRADUALLY. It might just help you out.

[Lak]

Yes, I know it still is 50 pounds. We are talking about Bazant and his model and as far as I can tell he explicitly states whether the upper portion is intact (or "rigid" to use his term) or diffuse.
Such an obvious rebuttal (the article is wrong, because the upper part is actually not intact), and yet the article was published.

Several people here don't see that as obvious either.

And I think we have previously met on another forum - correct me if I'm wrong - where you were given the same answers.

Do you even consider the possibility that you actually miss the point of this article and just don't grab the concept of limiting case ?

[jaydeehess]

Dropping one 50 pound mass of any type will impart more dynamic load on the impacted object than ten 5 pound masses droped one at a time in widely separated intervals.
With the exception of individual pieces of the loose material being highly subject to the effects of terminal velocity, or those with a great deal of elastic properties, such as feathers or straw.

Dynamic load, as an impulse force, is the result of a transfer of momentum over time.

The greater the time period the less the force, the less the momentum, the less the force.
Lessening the mass by destroying the topmost floor first and allowing it to drop(same distance so same velocity) lessens the impact felt on the lower section. This will also allow time for some of that mass to go over the side before the next floor is also destroyed. You then get down to the point at which you have a pile of rubble(theoretically) lying on the first intact floor above the impact floors. You then allow that floor to fail and yes, the entire upper section is now rubblized. Rubble will impact the lower floors over a longer time period thus lessening the impulse force compared to that of a solid object. Combined with having allowed time for more mass to go outside the walls in the first ten failures you might, just might have lessened the total dynamic loading enough so that the collapse would arrest there.
Then again it might not.

Thus when Bazant stated that destroying the upper section piece by piece might allow for enough of a lessening of the forces involved that is what he was getting at.

What Bazant did was give us an analogy in the form of a mental construct. Physical modelling is also an analogy for what occurs. You can get more and more deatiled in an analogy and come closer to a complete model of what you are investigating.
All analogies break down at some point so the crux of the matter is to posit some conditions that do not favour what was observed(global collapse) and see if your modelling still allows for the observed event(global collapse).

[jaydeehess]

Bazant did not model the tilt, this does not favour global collapse. Bazant did have the upper section as a solid block but it largely was. At the first impact with a non-tilted upper block a more accurate description would have the upper columns spearing through the lower floor very close to the lower columns(obviously there are mis-aligned or there is no collapse) then the intact first upper floor crashes down on the intact lower floor. Ignoring the dynamic loading and assuming that the upper floor neatly comes off its column seats you now have the condition where the lower floor has on it twice the gravity load it previously had and if this rather harmonius situation were to continue for ten more dropping levels you would have ten times the gravity load on that one floor. If we further assume that the upper columns drop through all floors to the ground without causing significant damage to the lower columns and that the hat truss also comes to rest on the stacked floors you have ten floor masses plus the hat truss sitting on one floor.

In this analogy we have ignored all dynamic loading, and we have assumed no significant damage is caused by the upper columns falling through nor have we considered any mass falling off to the sides(which was largely perimeter columns anyway and we have already assumed they did not cause any damage while dropping) and still we now have greater than ten times the static load that the floors were expected to experience. Ten times the load the truss seats were ever expected to have to transfer to the columns and we also have the situation in which the hat truss is nothing but dead weight. It is not capping this structure.

[NoZed Avenger]

A lot of people have chimed in, but I'll do my little plodding thing because I think I see at least see where we can communicate about the problems.


Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger / Orginially posted by M

(1) Bazant was not creating a model for the Towers' collapse.

- 1) Ok


So far, so good.

(2) Bazant was creating a model to test if a collapse would occur if an upper area were dropped straight onto the intact floors beneath.

- 2) That's my biggest problem. The upper block on 911 does not drop straight onto the lower block. Bazants theory is like communism...might look good on paper, not alot of real world value.


Ok. Refer to number one. This is not meant to be a real-world model. You are skipping ahead to argue things, but I am just looking to make sure we agree on the underlying facts. Do we agree that number 2 is stated correctly? Bazant "was creating a model to test if a collapse would occur if an upper area were dropped straight onto the intact floors beneath" ?


(3) Bazant concluded a collapse would occur, even in those circumstances.

- 3) OK

(4) The *actual* circumstances were even more favorable for collapse than his model.

4) Except that number 2 is not in effect so his theory has no application whatsoever to the real world events of that day.


Number 2 is in effect. For the model . I think what you are arguing, however, is that the actual circumstances were less favorable than the model's assumptions.

So number 4 appears to be an area of disagreement. We agree what the model shows (I think), but you contend the real world circumstances are less favorable for collapse?

Back to the preliminaries and we'll look at number 4 in a moment:

(5) Whether "intact" or not, a large volume of stuff was dropped onto lower floors.

5) Intact vs not intact matters. I'd rather someone drop fifty punds of sand on my head than a fifty pound lead ball. On 911 upper portion doesnt appear intact.


And this appears to be *why* you feel number 4 is incorrect. You are jumping ahead to argue, but this is much clearer than the previous part. Ok. We agree a large volume of stuff dropped onto the floors below; you feel the fact the material was not intact is significant. Fair summary?


(6) Whether "symmetrical" or not, a large volume of stuff was dropped onto lower floors

6) But Bazant said it was symmetrical didnt he?

Refer to number 1. Bazant didn't say anything about the actual collapse. Bazant was modeling whether the towers could stand under the assumptions made in his model. Bazant didn't say "it" was symmetrical. Bazant modeled what would happen *if* the towers' upper floors were dropped straight down.

Are we together on that?

(7) The fact that the load was not dropped straight down onto the supporting members below it actually made the collapse more likely by stressing weaker elements.

7) See 6.

Ok. You feel not dropping straight down onto the structural members underneath would make collapse less likely, and that this ties into the intact/not intact stuff. Fair?


As for the video and the non-explosive demolition,

(8) it provides some support for Bazant's theoretical work, in that it does successfully show explosives and thermite were not necessary to cause a collapse under similar (though not identical) circumstances.

8) Key features of Bazants theory are missing though. This is a necessary ingredient if I am not mistaken: Intact upper block crushing straight down. Thats not just something irrelevant.


Ok. So the disagreement here appears to be you feel the real-world scenario would be more likely to collapse because the top floors came down in pieces rather than in one unit.

It looks like we can distill the entire discussion to that one point, rather than the other extraneous issues that keep popping in and out of the thread.

[carlitos]

Very concise. I hope it goes well from here.

[Mobertermy]

Thank you twoof for dropping the pretense.



Edited for rule 12.(Also, I'm not a truther in that I am not 100% certain that the truther claims are correct. If by "twoof" you mean someone that is actively looking at both sides to figure out what is what then yes I am a "twoof." I don't see how that is a bad thing...I at one time believed the gov't story...my belief was based on faith in that I took their word for it. Are you claiming that faith is a good way of going about determining what is true and what isn't? If you don't think faith is a good way of going about deciding what is true then maybe you can drop the infantile labels like "twoof" to anyone that is employing their reason to try to figure out what is going on. Or do you just want to ridicule anyone that disagrees with you and the Bush/Cheney government. Maybe you should just stitch some prominent yellow Ts on our clothing...that way you can easily identify the "twoofs" from the normal unquestioning populace.)

As far as your water car analogy goes...it is not me that is claiming that diffuse vs. intact matters it is my reading of bazant. In his appendix to his simple analysis paper he explicitly states it sometimes matters and I'm pretty sure he says it matters when he discusses crush up crush down. So, while it is cute that you found a video of water crushing a car you may actually be arguing against Bazant.

[carlitos]

Dude, I know that you've been a flurry of posts since ya got here, seeking "truth" etc. But you really need to step back, slow down, and think.

And read the Membership Agreement.Additional Rules for posting in the JREF Topics, General Topics & Forum Topics sections

You will not post anything indecent. This is content that depicts or describes sexual or excretory organs or activities in an offensive manner.
You will not swear in your posts. This includes using swear words in a disguised form, for example, by replacing certain letters in the word with another letter, character, or image.
Posts must be on topic to the thread subject. On this Forum thread drift is expected but must follow from the discussion.
“Attack the argument, not the arguer." Having your opinion, claim or argument challenged, doubted or dismissed is not attacking the arguer.

ETA - Bazant says GRADUAL in the part you reference. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly. No one here claims that rinsing a car off would crush it. Why are you doing this exactly?

[Newtons Bit]

As far as your water car analogy goes...it is not me that is claiming that diffuse vs. intact matters it is my reading of bazant. In his appendix to his simple analysis paper he explicitly states it sometimes matters and I'm pretty sure he says it matters when he discusses crush up crush down. So, while it is cute that you found a video of water crushing a car you may actually be arguing against Bazant.

This has already been explained. You have a pattern of ignoring explanations. This is what makes you a "twoof".

[Mobertermy]

Nozed, I think I agree except that I was basing some of my understanding of Bazant from his crush-up crush-down paper. Its my understanding that he said that an intact block was required the whole way down, then once that block completed crush down...crush up would occur at the end destroying the block. My problem is that when I look at the video of the tower I dont see a block crushing all the way down.

Second thing, am I understanding Bazant correctly that he thinks having only part of the upper block crushing down would be worse than having the whole thing crushing...is that what he was getting at with equal distribution?

[Mobertermy]

He says "gradually as a pile of rubble." The part I referenced doesn't matter anyways since it deals with the airplane hitting higher. It still does show that in some instances intact and all at once vs. gradually as a pile of rubble does matter.

[TruthersLie]

You are quite welcome d-i-c-k head (note to moderator: if he is allowed to use a derogatroy term I see no reaon I can't also).


Have a nice suspension. Thank you. I know you are but what am I?

What derogatory term have I used towards you? Calling you a twoof? If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and acts like a duck, I call it a duck.

You are repeating the typical truther gibberish of "having friends who became truthers" and "I'm neutral" when your actions and words clearly show that you are a truther. AT least be intellectually honest.


(Also, I'm not a truther in that I am not 100% certain that the truther claims are correct. If by "twoof" you mean someone that is actively looking at both sides to figure out what is what then yes I am a "twoof."


Please provide just one claim by the twoof which is correct. Actively looking at both sides? There are not "both sides." You have FACTS and you have fantasy. Please choose one and stop pretending.


I don't see how that is a bad thing...I at one time believed the gov't story...

Proof of twoof. Got it.


my belief was based on faith in that I took their word for it. Are you claiming that faith is a good way of going about determining what is true and what isn't? If you don't think faith is a good way of going about deciding what is true then maybe you can drop the infantile labels like "twoof" to anyone that is employing their reason to try to figure out what is going on.


But you aren't trying to use "reason to figure out what is going on." YOu are trying to use datamined bs quotes to support faulty reading, and piss poor reading comprehension.

what are you 15?


Or do you just want to ridicule anyone that disagrees with you and the Bush/Cheney government.

ROFLMAO.

I detest the bush/cheney government. I would DANCE FOR JOY if there was ANY proof that there was an inside job. Too bad there isn't and wasn't twoof.


Maybe you should just stitch some prominent yellow Ts on our clothing...that way you can easily identify the "twoofs" from the normal unquestioning populace.)


Yes you must be about 15... Goodwins law much???? Go back to school twoof.


As far as your water car analogy goes...it is not me that is claiming that diffuse vs. intact matters it is my reading of bazant.

YOu are the one claiming that diffuse would make it better... does the diffused water not destroy the car? Huh?

Your piss poor reading comprehension and attempts to datamine quotes are your undoing.


In his appendix to his simple analysis paper he explicitly states it sometimes matters and I'm pretty sure he says it matters when he discusses crush up crush down.


why are you datamining the appendix and IGNORING the rest of the paper? Try again.


So, while it is cute that you found a video of water crushing a car you may actually be arguing against Bazant.

No twoof. I am showing how piss poor your reading for UNDERSTANDING and comprehension is. And how piss poor your understanding of basic science is.

Now run back to class and try to pay attention.

[Newtons Bit]

No it hasn't. Thats what makes you a "retard."

You've ignored just about every single post that patiently explains what you're demanding be answered. This is a very common tactic by "truthers".

Here's one you've ignored, but there are a bunch more:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5415264&postcount=206

By the way, you're behavior is going to result in you getting suspended very shortly. Personal attacks are not tolerated on this forum.

[TruthersLie]

He says "gradually as a pile of rubble." The part I referenced doesn't matter anyways since it deals with the airplane hitting higher. It still does show that in some instances intact and all at once vs. gradually as a pile of rubble does matter.

Please show me what part of the collapses are GRADUAL.

It is very simple. It is very straighforward.

Datamined quotes from twoof webpages won't cut it here. Please take your suspension time to LOOK IT UP and READ FOR COMPREHENSION.

[Mobertermy]

You've ignored just about every single post that patiently explains what you're demanding be answered. This is a very common tactic by "truthers".

Here's one you've ignored, but there are a bunch more:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5415264&postcount=206

By the way, you're behavior is going to result in you getting suspended very shortly. Personal attacks are not tolerated on this forum.


Actually, I am trying to understand and nozed is doing a pretty good job of it. Maybe you should butt out and let him handle it. And I am going to get suspended for "personal attacks which aren't tolerated"? what kind of hypocrisy is that when you start every post with calling me a "twoof"? That's one of the dumbest most hypocritcal things I've heard in a long time. Maybe in the old south they didn't think calling black people by the N word wasn't a personal attack either but just their privelege.

[Mobertermy]

Just go to youtube and find footage of the towers collapsing. Then go to Bazant crush up crush down paper and look at his graphic representations. Then compare the two. You will notice that in the real world there is no intact block crushing down.

- One claim by a truther thats correct: WTC7 fell at free fall speed for 2.5 seconds. NIST initially denied this.

[TruthersLie]

Just go to youtube and find footage of the towers collapsing. Then go to Bazant crush up crush down paper and look at his graphic representations. Then compare the two. You will notice that in the real world there is no intact block crushing down.

- One claim by a truther thats correct: WTC7 fell at free fall speed for 2.5 seconds. NIST initially denied this.

Oh twoof...

You are too funny.

NIST didn't deny that there was a period of near free fall. They fully implied it in their draft report.

What they denied was that wtc7 fell at freefall. That means for the WHOLE collapse. There is a BIG difference in that. Again, read for understanding and comprehension.

David chandler did some excellent work to further that knowledge and NIST included it... too bad he went off the rails about explosives.

You really should try to read up on the information during your suspension.

[Newtons Bit]

Actually, I am trying to understand and nozed is doing a pretty good job of it. Maybe you should butt out and let him handle it. And I am going to get suspended for "personal attacks which aren't tolerated"? what kind of hypocrisy is that when you start every post with calling me a "twoof"? That's one of the dumbest most hypocritcal things I've heard in a long time. Maybe in the old south they didn't think calling black people by the N word wasn't a personal attack either but just their privelege.

And what NoZed Avenger is explaining has already been explained multiple times by multiple different people. You've chosen to ignore those explanations. That's why people are calling you a truther.

You're leading off with standard long debunked :rule10 about Bazant's paper. It was incredibly obvious to just about everyone who posts here that you have not read Bazant's paper, you've only seen it referred to on truther websites that you read. If you had read it, you would know that it is a limiting case: Bazant set up a scenario in which the towers collapsed in a manner that was more probably to collapse survival. In this model the collapse still progresses. That is the whole point of the article. This has been explained to you many many times. Why will you not acknowledge this?

[A W Smith]

Just go to youtube and find footage of the towers collapsing. Then go to Bazant crush up crush down paper and look at his graphic representations. Then compare the two. You will notice that in the real world there is no intact block crushing down.

- One claim by a truther thats correct: WTC7 fell at free fall speed for 2.5 seconds. NIST initially denied this.

There you did it again. Bazant's paper is a limiting case. How could you not know this? Its been explained to you in just about every third post in this very thread. Yet you pretend the text does not exist. WTF is the matter with you? your deliberate ignorance won't impress many here.

[carlitos]

Just go to youtube and find footage of the towers collapsing. Then go to Bazant crush up crush down paper and look at his graphic representations. Then compare the two. You will notice that in the real world there is no intact block crushing down.

Why do you suppose that people in this thread keep saying things to you like this?
Yes, we understand that you wilfully misrepresent the purpose of Bazant's paper, which was not to replicate the collapses.

How 'bout actually reading it and following the calculations instead of relying upon the interpretations of known fraudsters with a twisted agenda to push?
Or this?
It would also help Mobertermy to actually read Bazant's paper (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf) for true understanding.



I've hi-lighted the last sentence, which is the most important to the point Mobertermy does not understand. Bazant's paper is not supposed to exactly reflect reality. It's extremely difficult to compute exactly and he explains why. Bazant instead chooses to model a scenario that is most favorable to collapse prevention. This is what is known in engineering as enveloping.

And then you still reply with something like this?

Twinstead, the problem from my perspective is that Bazant's model has absolutely nothing to do with reality. He theorized an intact upper block that crushes straight down. Anyone can watch the videos and see this wasn't the case. Personally, I hate seeing Bazant's theory brought up because anyone can see that Bazant was wrong.

Really?

Is it just possible that you don't understand the purpose of his paper, and that the people answering you on this forum are correct? Is it possible? Likely, even?

One of many, many examples of a limiting case was given here. Did you read it? Did you understand it?

OK, I'll take a stab at this.

Models are often developed as a "proof of concept". In other words, they are created to test whether or not something is actually possible before concluding that something is probable. Models can be physical constructs (although scaling can cause issues), computer simulations, or a series of equations and diagrams.

Bazant's first paper demonstrates that once started, regardless of how it began, a global collapse was inevitable based solely on the energy calculations. Later papers refined those calculations and looked at energy losses within the actual collapse.

So, once Bazant's model showed that the global collapse had to happen, it was then reasonable to start doing research into how and why it happened. If Bazant's model showed that the global collapse was impossible in the limiting case, then it would be reasonable to develop a model that more closely resembled the collapses as they actually happened.

To use an analogy that has been done here before, let's say we wanted to figure out whether or not David Ortiz can hit a home run in Fenway Park. David Ortiz himself may be unavailable to do some batting practice, but I am. On the third pitch, I knock it out of the park. If scrawny little me can hit a home run at Fenway Park, it is safe to conclude that David Ortiz can as well, even though I do not hit exactly like Big Papi. I am the model of the event, Ortiz is the real thing.

My advice for your suspension, just to repeat:
Mobertermy, my advice to you is to print this thread and the 6-page Bazant article. Walk away from the computer, grab a highlighter and find the important bits. A hint - theoretical qualifiers about what coulda shoulda woulda happened in some gradual collapse to dissapate the energy in the appendix of the Bazant piece are NOT the important part. Don't highlight those. Then take a look at what everyone is saying to you here, and see if you understand it better. If you want to understand it, that is.

[Tricky]

This thread is closed pending moderator review, and not just for one poster. Remember that posting off-topic is a violation of forum rules regardless of the provocation.

Remember: Report, don't retort.

[Tricky]

This thread has been provisionally reopened. While one of the principals in the recent spate of moderation in this thread has been suspended, let me remind you again that uncivil behavior, whether in retaliation or not, is subject to moderation including infractions, suspensions and banning.

Do not be baited into engaging in uncivil behavior. That applies in all threads, not just this one.

[NoZed Avenger]

Nozed, I think I agree except that I was basing some of my understanding of Bazant from his crush-up crush-down paper. Its my understanding that he said that an intact block was required the whole way down, -

I don't think there is any "Require[ment]" the block stay together the entire way down. Again, he created a series of simple assumptions to determine if - under circumstances he considered the best possible chance to arrest a collapse - the building still collapsed.

For the building to have the best chance of survival, the upper floors would contact the floors underneath them squarely. Truss hits truss evenly. All of that is simply an assumption of the model, not a requirement in order to ensure collapse. In fact, it is largely the opposite.

- then once that block completed crush down...crush up would occur at the end destroying the block. My problem is that when I look at the video of the tower I dont see a block crushing all the way down.

Second thing, am I understanding Bazant correctly that he thinks having only part of the upper block crushing down would be worse than having the whole thing crushing...is that what he was getting at with equal distribution?

There are conflated issues here. The three things to keep in mind are:

(1) Mass
(2) Time
(3) Pieces vs. "intact"

There is also velocity/acceleration, but lets stick with the simple stuff. The first two are, from my point of view, the important issues. The load striking the lower floors is a dynamic load. As people have pointed out, getting hit with 1,000 pounds of anything all at once is different than being hit with 1000, 1 pound packets if the packets are dropped one at a time and the impact is therefore spread out over a longer period of time. Just as a car's roof will stop rain, but -- as the embedded video shows -- will be absolutely crushed if a large amount of water is dumped all at once.

In this case, almost all of the material in the upper floors dropped within the space of the building floor. Almost all of the entire mass therefore hit the floor beneath it. And it is that one floor that matters, because when the weight hits, that one floor has to take all of the strain of the mass striking it as a dynamic load. So the Mass (No. 1 on the list) is not materially different than in the Bazant model.

With regard to time, I do not believe there is a material difference there, as well. The entire mass came down. Whether you consider it largely intact, or not, this is not a case where the material was dropped, small bit by small bit, over the course of minutes -- it all hit within the space of a second. If anyone feels this is a material difference, then they will have to use math to show it -- any difference is not something that could be arrived at by mere looking and guessing. Moreover, the amount of mass of the upper floors provided more than enough force to initiate the collapse (by a factor of ten or more), so any math will have to show the minimal delay reduced the force (I may be misusing the technical term, but I hope the meaning is clear) being applied to a mere fraction -- even cutting it in half or to a mere quarter of the model's assumptions still has the buildings collapse.

And number 3, the factor you are looking at, will not matter if the first two do not vary significantly. The "not intact" factor only matters if the amount of time can be shifted significantly enough to allow the lower floors to absorb the initial impact and stand long enough to then take the next one as a more-or-less separate event. Otherwise, being crushed under a ton of rocks is no better than being buried under a one-ton slab.

The final question, relating to equal distribution – is not about having “part” of the upper floors hitting, but is about the mass striking the floors below unevenly – not the clean, truss-onto-truss, beam-onto-beam even distribution he modeled.

In other words, instead of spreading out the impact evenly, more weight/mass/force would be applied in certain spots – making the collapse more likely because that one spot would be strained even more than in the Bazant model, where it is all spread out evenly.




(Whew. Had just finished typing that when the thread closed. Hated to lose it, not for the quality, but because of the size.)

[Horatius]

Consider:

All at once:

3Crwh_FdFzs&NR=1


One at a time:

3ox6f174KgI


If the pieces hit hard enough, spreading them out really doesn't make that much difference.

[NoZed Avenger]

If the pieces hit hard enough, spreading them out really doesn't make that much difference.

Well, that's why I was leaving out velocity and such -- using the assumption the speed and acceleration would be roughly the same whether falling in bits or all together.

[thecritta]

Yes i see that in the video the upper portion of floors in the building seems
to have just as many floors in the lower portion of the building and that
when the supports are removed upper part C crushes Lower Part A, and
both blocks seem to be destroying each other at the same rate, i assume
they started the collapse initaiation in the middle of the building for this very
reason and i assume that if they tried to initiate the collapse 3/4 of the way
up the building instead of in the middle the top upper part C would dissapear
before it completely crushed lower part A and leave about 1/4 of the building
standing is that right?

I dont understand why the top section upper part C of the towers when it impacts
lower part A of the towers doesnt disintegrate at the same rate it is destroying the
lower part C of the towers, so why does it appear that the upper part C of the towers
is much more solid that Lower part A wouldnt the upper part C have to be more solid
to survive crushing 90 lower floors without disentegrating completely before it reached the bottom?

So how did upper part C survive all the way to the bottom without disintegrating
to pieces, i am a computer technician i fix and repair computers part time i am not
a structural enginner, so please explain in laymans terms thankyou?

:):):):confused::confused::confused:

[DGM]

So how did upper part C survive all the way to the bottom without disintegrating
to pieces, :

Welcome

Even if the top part is "broken to pieces" it still contains the same mass it started with plus the added mass of all the floors it crushed on the way. The upper part is in fact getting denser not weaker. Laymen enough?

[Newtons Bit]

Part A? Part C? Somebody has been reading Heiwa's bull:rule10. That's your problem right there.

[johnny karate]

I'm a bit puzzled why any layperson would expect to understand the dynamics of structural failure.

[DavidJames]

I'm a bit puzzled why any layperson would expect to understand the dynamics of structural failure.Part A? Part C? Somebody has been reading Heiwa's bull:rule10. That's your problem right there.As Newtons Bit notes, I don't think thecritta is just any layperson. It sure appears he has come with an agenda.

[twinstead]

Well, this layperson just comes with a case of beer and some pizza. Anybody hungry?

[Dave Rogers]

Part A? Part C? Somebody has been reading Heiwa's bull:rule10. That's your problem right there.

Not necessarily. It's Bazant's notation, from back before Heiwa started polluting the waters of intelligent discourse. In fact, the very choice of A and C for the two parts should be rather an obvious hint that they are not the only relevant entities here; anyone whose brain isn't on standby should immediately ask themself, "OK, so what's part B?"

Dave

[DGM]

Not necessarily. It's Bazant's notation, from back before Heiwa started polluting the waters of intelligent discourse. In fact, the very choice of A and C for the two parts should be rather an obvious hint that they are not the only relevant entities here; anyone whose brain isn't on standby should immediately ask themself, "OK, so what's part B?"

Dave
I didn't look at it that way. I suppose part "B" would be what I described as part "C"(upper) increasing in mass and density. The collapse front.

[Horatius]

Yes i see that in the video the upper portion of floors in the building seems to have just as many floors in the lower portion of the building and that when the supports are removed upper part C crushes Lower Part A, and both blocks seem to be destroying each other at the same rate, i assume they started the collapse initaiation in the middle of the building for this very reason and i assume that if they tried to initiate the collapse 3/4 of the way up the building instead of in the middle the top upper part C would dissapear before it completely crushed lower part A and leave about 1/4 of the building standing is that right?


Actually, surprisingly, it isn't right. Take a look at this video, which is a compilation of several of these demolitions:

NwFHEoiUZ7o


In particular, note the ones at about the 2:30 and 3:20 marks. At 2:30, we see one where the upper block is about 1/3 (or maybe a bit more) of the building. More dramatically, in the one at 3:20, the upper block looks to be less than 1/4 of the whole building. Yet, the collapse continues all the way to the ground.


I dont understand why the top section upper part C of the towers when it impacts lower part A of the towers doesnt disintegrate at the same rate it is destroying the lower part C of the towers, so why does it appear that the upper part C of the towers is much more solid that Lower part A wouldnt the upper part C have to be more solid to survive crushing 90 lower floors without disentegrating completely before it reached the bottom?

So how did upper part C survive all the way to the bottom without disintegrating to pieces, i am a computer technician i fix and repair computers part time i am not a structural enginner, so please explain in laymans terms thankyou?

:):):):confused::confused::confused:


This is part of the problem here. It's hard to explain it in layman's terms, as it is both really complicated, and very counterintuitive. I can understand being confused by such collapses, as we're used to thinking of buildings as being very strong, and to see such complete disintegration is shocking. That "counterintuitive" part is why we always insist on people doing calculations, and backing up those calculations with experiments, as much as is practical.

As another example, going back to the issue of the upper block crushing the lower block, and why it appears to be so much stronger. I'd be very surprised if anyone could give a simple calculation that would explain that, but if we look at the examples in the video above, that is, in fact, what seems to happen in most (but not all!) cases, counterintuitive as that may be. But even that is not the most counterintuitive thing we see in that video. Take a look at the example at time 2:00. In this case we see an example where the upper block does seem to "crush up" before the lower block is completely "crushed down", and yet, the "crush down" continues all the way to the ground, anyways. And that's with some very obvious "mass shedding" on the side facing the camera!

So, yes, it's counterintuitive. I understand being confused by it. But when you follow the math, and then really look at the real-world examples we have available, it seems as if the counterintuitive conclusions of the calculations are in fact correct. When our expectations are so clearly at odds with the real world, a reasonable person must accept that their expectations are just wrong, even if that makes your brain hurt.

[Newtons Bit]

Not necessarily. It's Bazant's notation, from back before Heiwa started polluting the waters of intelligent discourse. In fact, the very choice of A and C for the two parts should be rather an obvious hint that they are not the only relevant entities here; anyone whose brain isn't on standby should immediately ask themself, "OK, so what's part B?"

Dave

I don't see it in the Bazant and Zhou paper. Is it in the second one?

[Dave Rogers]

I don't see it in the Bazant and Zhou paper. Is it in the second one?

Damn, I may have to look this up - I think it was Bazant and Verdure. The whole point is that part B is the mass of rubble between A and C, which is the part (or rather, the part whose interactions with the other parts) that Heiwa and lots of other conspiracists like to ignore.

Dave

[alienentity]

Yes i see that in the video the upper portion of floors in the building seems
to have just as many floors in the lower portion of the building and that
when the supports are removed upper part C crushes Lower Part A, and
both blocks seem to be destroying each other at the same rate,
<snip>
:):):):confused::confused::confused:

To add to what Horatius wrote, I've carefully counted the floors of those videos to answer the same question and found most of them are about 50/50.
So I don't really agree with Horatius on that point.

As to C vs A, B is the compacted rubble which accumulates - the collapse front. B increases in both mass and velocity, obviously. This is one point completely missed by almost all truthers. I'll get back to that.
The other point usually missed is that B always precedes C, so as the collapse progresses, a lot of the 'work' is being done by this collapse rubble, before the upper block passes thru that space.
Conversely, from the POV of A, it isn't meeting C intact, since B has already passed thru and done much of the work.

Supposing your initial impression operates on the 110 story WTC towers. In that case you have an initial upper block mass of about 13% the overall height of the building. If, as you theorize, both upper and lower sections are destroyed at the same rate, then at a point roughly 26% down, both sections are converted to rubble - this rubble is far more dense than the original structure, and has now accelerated and accumulated.

So now you have a mass representing some 30 floors, falling even faster than the initial 1 or two stories which initiated the collapse!

Let's say Ci (initial) = h(15 stories)v (initial velocity)
So at the 26% point Cf (final) = h (26 stories) v (final velocity)

I'm just creating a crude equation to demonstrate the basic difference in force. It's very easy to see that Cf is far greater than Ci, so if Ci was sufficient to cause collapse, Cf is even more sufficient.

It doesn't matter whether or not the upper block is now completely crushed into rubble.

Another way to express it is that the upper block is really CB with B growing constantly.

[Horatius]

To add to what Horatius wrote, I've carefully counted the floors of those videos to answer the same question and found most of them are about 50/50.
So I don't really agree with Horatius on that point.



The one at 3:20 is much less than 50%. There are 3 stories above the two they collapse to start the demolition, and I counted about 13 stories in total. In one frame, you can count 7 or 8 stories from the top, and they pan down from there as the demolition progresses. The others are all close to 50%, but the dropping block is usually a bit less than 50%, from what I can tell. One seemed to be 6 stories out of about 14, and another 6 stories out of about 15.

We really need better camera work on these things!

[DGM]

We really need better camera work on these things!

Jesh..... It's hard enough to edit out the explosions and squibs.:rolleyes:

[Horatius]

Jesh..... It's hard enough to edit out the explosions and squibs.:rolleyes:



This is why I'm advocating that all new high-rise buildings be constructed as holograms right from the beginning.