It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by -PLB-
Bazant proved that even when using a scenario that was most optimistic for arrest, or in other words, the resistance was maximal, the building would still collapse.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
How could that be PROVEN without even knowing the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers.
Bazant can't even apply Newton's 3rd Law.
How does the top falling portion crush the lower stationary portion without crushing itself SIMULTANEOUSLY?
Where is there a physical model that can repeatedly demonstrate this PROOF?
Here is one showing that it is NONSENSE.
www.youtube.com...
psik
Originally posted by -PLB-
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
How could that be PROVEN without even knowing the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers.
Because you just need to know the load and the load capacity. To be honest I don't even know what you mean by distribution of steel and concrete.
Originally posted by -PLB-
Bazant proved that even when using a scenario that was most optimistic for arrest, or in other words, the resistance was maximal, the building would still collapse.
Stalling? Where am I stalling? What do you want me to explain to you? What is it you do not understand?
Oh, and acknowledging that you have no clue about the resistance and you also have no clue if the collapse would arrest would be a nice gesture.
Originally posted by bsbray11
This will make the second time I've asked you what exactly this is based on. The first time you pigeon-holed everything else Bazant assumed in those papers to say your whole claim here is based on him assuming columns impact each other directly. You're leaving a lot of information out and you know it. If you don't have it in you to actually show where this was proven, and not just a soundbyte that leaves so much out that you're basically lying, then stop trolling.
I want you to post Bazant's paper again now and let's talk about all the other things he assumed in his model besides columns impacting each other. We've done this before, and I think that's the real reason you're already dragging your heels into this discussion. This is going to be great.
That would be a nice gesture, yes, coming from you, since it's your claim that the building would arrest no matter what.
Simply saying that columns impacted columns in his model does not automatically prove that the collapse would arrest. That's not all he assumed in his model that was relevant to the outcome and you know it. So why are you being so dishonest already?
There is more information, lots of it, variables, assumptions, everything it takes to try to model a building collapse, that you are intentionally leaving out because you already know you don't want to have to stand behind Bazant's work again. You already know he also assumed 50-95% of the building masses stayed within the footprints the whole time, which is a baseless assumption at best and an outright lie at worst. This assumption of his skews his model in favor of the collapse continuing, along with other things he assumed that we can go into. But I'm getting ahead of myself aren't I? It was your claim, so if you want to defer to Bazant, why don't you actually post the paper you are talking about and show where this was proven?
Originally posted by -PLB-
Read his paper. That is what I base it on.
What exactly do you base your position on that collapse would arrest? (let me guess your answer: "newtons laws of motion")
You say I am stalling and not addressing the issue we were discussing, and now you want to change the subject? You are really trying to divert here. Bazant is not the subject, and completely irrelevant for the validity of my explanation we were discussing.
That would be a nice gesture, yes, coming from you, since it's your claim that the building would arrest no matter what.
No I did not claim that. As usual you don't understand anything of the physics. Again, which part of my explanation do you not understand, what do you want me to explain?
Originally posted by bsbray11
Once again, instead of actually posting the paper to discuss, like I asked, you cop-out. You're really weak.
I didn't say I had evidence that the collapse would arrest. That's your claim.
If Bazant's paper is irrelevant to the discussion then why are you using him for a source for your claim that the "collapses" would arrest? Are you losing your grip on sanity again?
You haven't posted any physics. All you're doing is foaming off at the mouth while stalling for time so you don't actually have to try to defend Bazant's work. Because you already know it's trash.
Originally posted by -PLB-
Originally posted by bsbray11
Once again, instead of actually posting the paper to discuss, like I asked, you cop-out. You're really weak.
We already tried that. You were unable to comprehend it despite my explanations. Why would it be different now?
I didn't say I had evidence that the collapse would arrest. That's your claim.
Huh? Have you been drinking or something?
If Bazant's paper is irrelevant to the discussion then why are you using him for a source for your claim that the "collapses" would arrest? Are you losing your grip on sanity again?
Because it has no influence on my explanation.
Again, which part of my explanation do you not understand, what do you want me to explain?
Originally posted by bsbray11
Like I said, you're running scared because you already know the paper is trash.
Would you like to at least link to the paper you are specifically referencing, since Bazant wrote more than one you know?
Are you? You made that claim, not me.
Oh, okay. When I ask for proof that the "collapses" couldn't be stopped, you cite Bazant, yet Bazant has no influence on your explanation. This is already great. I hope lots of people are reading along with this conversation.
I've given up on all hope of you being able to explain anything actually.
Originally posted by -PLB-
Originally posted by bsbray11
Would you like to at least link to the paper you are specifically referencing, since Bazant wrote more than one you know?
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?".
My claim is that the collapse would not arrest.
Oh, okay. When I ask for proof that the "collapses" couldn't be stopped, you cite Bazant, yet Bazant has no influence on your explanation. This is already great. I hope lots of people are reading along with this conversation.
Yes you try to divert the subject. We were talking about my explanation weren't we? I take we can agree on it then? If not, which part of my explanation do you not understand, what do you want me to explain?
So just for the record, your claim that the "collapses" could not be arrested is based on this paper, and you claim it proves this?:
www-math.mit.edu...
And I have made no such claim, or the opposite claim either. Every time you try to shift the burden back on me, all you're telling me is that you can't support your own claim. I never made any of these claims.
Your "explanation," you first called an "example" and just pulled numbers out of your ass in response to someone else. There's not much to explain about that.
Then I asked for actual physics, and that's when you started talking about Bazant. You were the one to bring him up, so it's hilarious that you're now claiming I'm trying to divert and that isn't what you were talking about. You're already back-peddling. This is really pathetic.
At the beginning of each post (including the one I'm responding to now) you reference Bazant, then by the end of the same post you're saying you don't want to talk about Bazant and I'm trying to change the subject.
You need a break from ATS man. You want to reference Bazant's paper but you don't want to actually talk about Bazant's paper. I really feel sorry for you. Maybe you should go on a vacation at JREF where you can just sling insults all day and fit right in.
Originally posted by -PLB-
So just for the record, your claim that the "collapses" could not be arrested is based on this paper, and you claim it proves this?:
www-math.mit.edu...
Yes.
And I have made no such claim, or the opposite claim either. Every time you try to shift the burden back on me, all you're telling me is that you can't support your own claim. I never made any of these claims.
It is really good to hear that you acknowledge that the towers could have collapsed naturally after initiation, without any explosives. Are you losing your religion?
Your "explanation," you first called an "example" and just pulled numbers out of your ass in response to someone else. There's not much to explain about that.
But it does explain both why the collapse rate increases, and that once the first intact floor has failed, the next one inevitably also fails. That was what you wanted to know right?
The only reason I brought up Bazant was for the resistance issue. Get over it already and get back to the subject.
Originally posted by -PLB-
So just for the record, your claim that the "collapses" could not be arrested is based on this paper, and you claim it proves this?:
www-math.mit.edu...
Yes.
Dr. Bazant argues that all of the potential energy associated with the fall of the upper
section of the tower through two storey heights [the storey where the failure occurred and
the uppermost storey in the lower section] would be concentrated into the destruction of
the uppermost storey of the lower section. This energy would overwhelm the ability of
the columns of the uppermost storey to absorb energy and collapse would progress
through this storey. The available energy would then be concentrated into the next storey
down and the tower would collapse one storey at a time to ground level.
The first error which Dr. Bazant has made is his assumption that all of the available
energy would be utilised exclusively in the destruction of the uppermost storey of the
lower section. This is physically impossible under any and all circumstances.
The energy available to the collapse is derived from the mass of the upper section. This
mass is distributed throughout the upper section. Take for example the mass of the
topmost floor slab of the tower. How is it possible for this mass to have its effect upon
the uppermost storey of the lower section? In order for the energy associated with this
mass to act at the collapse front it must be transmitted through the columns of the upper
section. This energy has no other route to the collapse front other than through these
columns. The very fact that all of these upper section columns are subject to load, means
that they would absorb energy, in the form of elastic and plastic strain. Thus Dr. Bazant's
argument that all of the energy would be concentrated into overcoming the columns on
the uppermost storey of the lower section cannot be true.
It is impossible for all of the energy of the falling section to act on only the one
topmost storey in the lower section, since the very act of transmission of the energy
to that storey, dictates that all of the storeys in the upper section will come under
load and consume energy.
Originally posted by bsbray11
It is impossible for all of the energy of the falling section to act on only the one
topmost storey in the lower section, since the very act of transmission of the energy
to that storey, dictates that all of the storeys in the upper section will come under
load and consume energy.
www.journalof911studies.com...