The NIST report, start to finish

reply to post by -PLB-

Your conclusion is in no way a logical result of your premises.

How so?

The most optimistic value for the resistance is maximum static load is it not?

You cannot simply say dynamic load gives more force, an unconnected dynamic load affects the underlying structure differently from a connected one. We don't know precisely the arrangement of the falling load, so if you want to honestly claim the most optimistic value for resistance it needs to be the static load value.

The most optimistic value for this is 3x the force that gravity exerts, is it not?

Try building a model on your desktop any way you please, but see how much static load it can support before failing. Now divide that load by three and drop the result one unit height above your little construction. What do you see?

Fell free to document your results if you manage to confirm Bazant's analysis.

Originally posted by -PLB-
I am not going to check the validity of the claim made here, as there was an excess amount of energy of about 7 times of that was required. More than enough to do similar damage to the top section.

Remember, that number is coming from this same flawed analysis. So what you're not considering is why the analysis, and therefore that number, is flawed.

Anyway, since you choose to change the subject altogether, lets get this straight:

You understand my explanation why the collapse rate would increase and you agree with it.

No, you must be confusing reality with one of your wet fantasies.

You understand my explanation why collapse could not arrest after the first intact floor failing and you agree with it.

That's wrong too. You really must not be reading much of anything I post, honestly...

Or are you changing the subject because you got stuck and can't really express why you disagree?

I'm not changing the subject. Here is how it really straightens out:

1) You claimed the falling mass could not be stopped.
2) You made up a fictitious scenario and fictitious numbers to support this.
3) I asked you for a legitimate source using real science instead.
4) You referenced Bazant.
5) I am now explaining, along with two others who have just joined in, why Bazant's analysis was wrong.


I understand that you don't want to discuss Bazant's paper. You shouldn't have referenced it in an attempt to back your own claim, then.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Try building a model on your desktop any way you please, but see how much static load it can support before failing. Now divide that load by three and drop the result one unit height above your little construction. What do you see?

I just wanted to throw out that a free-fall drop of any distance is also inconsistent with NIST's theory. A whole floor coming loose in an instant and pancaking down into the floor below it from a free-fall drop, is about the exact opposite of NIST's hypothesis. And if it's columns impacting columns, then what happens to the bolted-and-welded sections of columns between the "upper block" and "lower block"? There's no free-fall there either.

Assuming that a whole floor's worth of structure was just instantly gone, to allow the "upper block" to free-fall through the same height, is optimistic in favor of forcing a collapse to progress, and is unrealistic.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

They do have good approximations of the load. It has never been an issue. That is why you never see anyone questioning it but you.

YEAH RIGHT!

They can't tell us the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level but then you can just CLAIM the approximations are good.

It really comes down to you expecting people to TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT.

psik

Originally posted by bsbray11

No, you must be confusing reality with one of your wet fantasies.

That's wrong too. You really must not be reading much of anything I post, honestly...

It was just false hope that you finally understood something. Not the same as a fantasy (or maybe it is). At least you agree on point 3, that is already 1 more than I had expected. So which part of my explanation do you not understand, what do you want me to explain?

1) You claimed the falling mass could not be stopped.

I understand you have a difficulty understanding anything concerning physics. So just take my word for it, I never claimed that. I explained that once the first intact floor fails, the next one also has to fail. At least under the conditions in that example. (You can also make up examples where that isn't the case).

2) You made up a fictitious scenario and fictitious numbers to support this.

That is correct.

I asked you for a legitimate source using real science instead.
4) You referenced Bazant.

You never asked for a legitimate source. I never put Bazant forward as a source for my explanation. Do you have an extremely bad short term memory? If you want a legitimate source, try physics for dummies or something.

5) I am now explaining, along with two others who have just joined in, why Bazant's analysis was wrong.

I understand that you don't want to discuss Bazant's paper. You shouldn't have referenced it in an attempt to back your own claim, then.

So far you have only quoted an external source. You and claim you explaining something? HA. Anyway, I am not interested in discussing Bazants papers with you. Try finding someone more educated to take your place. (maybe Azp420?)

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Yeah, isn't that something. I have to take the word of so many people, its not funny anymore. All people I know claim the existence of a country by the name of Australia. Some even claim to have been there. Should I believe them?

reply to post by Darkwing01


Maybe you are missing the context here. It is the most optimistic scenario for arrest in a situation where a floor had already failed. That seems a bit obvious though, as when no floor had failed, there would be nothing to arrest.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Yeah, isn't that something. I have to take the word of so many people, its not funny anymore. All people I know claim the existence of a country by the name of Australia. Some even claim to have been there. Should I believe them?

But what does that have to do with the way physics works which can be tested in your house?

Why haven't any of these experts built a self supporting model that can be collapsed COMPLETELY by dropping the top 15% or less onto the rest?

Experts should be able to model Newtonian physics. No one should need to TAKE THEIR WORD for physics this simple. And then they can't specify the total amount of concrete. They can't specify the distributions of steel and concrete when those distributions have to be determined properly for 1360 foot buildings to hold themselves up and withstand the wind. Gravity and shear forces can be modeled.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Engineers haven't done that because in the non-truther real world the existing models suffice for the things that the engineers from NIST and other engineers wanted to know.

reply to post by -PLB-

Engineers haven't done that because in the non-truther real world the existing models suffice for the things that the engineers from NIST and other engineers wanted to know.

Existing models are only valid insofar as they predict real events in reality, not how they explain past events.

We use physical models because we can predict that if we build another building according to the known laws of physics it will behave exactly like other constructions based on that principle.

Fact is, nobody predicted these buildings to behave this way before the actual event and a fair few PhD'd scientists of various descriptions including some of those affiliated with the official position (indeed including Bazant himself) expressed surprise at the outcome.

So at best we have an explanation in terms of established laws.

But explanation is not science. It is no use to "predict" the recent stock market crash in terms of physical law now, you only make money if you can predict what will happen in the future.

So Bazant gives us a model and a prediction, but no one can build a physical analogue which behaves as he predicts. In fact it is easy to build all kinds of different models with different materials that falsify his prediction however much it was made on the basis of true and correct established physical law.

So what is wrong here is Bazant's APPLICATION of the laws, specifically the assumptions he started with. Doing science is about more than just regurgitating established principles, I trust you are aware.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Engineers haven't done that because in the non-truther real world the existing models suffice for the things that the engineers from NIST and other engineers wanted to know.

So all you can do is come up with EXCUSES to claim that your DELUSIONS are REAL.

The energy required to crush my single paper loops can be tested and computed. It is 0.118 Joules.

The potential energy of the dropped mass was enough to crush 8 loops flat. But that is only the EMPTY SPACE DISTANCE not the distance through the structure. The drop damaged 9 loops. 5 were crushed flat and 4 were partially crushed. TEN YEARS of this 9/11 insanity would be hilarious if it did not show that the physics profession was composed of pathetic assholes. Of course it could not have dragged on for this long if the physicists were not pathetic assholes. It would have been resolved in SIX MONTHS. We should have been told there was no way airliners could do that to skyscrapers that big.

Now they have spent TEN YEARS painting themselves into a corner. How can they even come out and say that it is important to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the towers? They would just show how ridiculous they were for not demanding the information NINE YEARS AGO.

9/11 is the Piltdown Man Incident of the 21st century.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Engineers haven't done that because in the non-truther real world the existing models suffice for the things that the engineers from NIST and other engineers wanted to know.

So all you can do is come up with EXCUSES to claim that your DELUSIONS are REAL.



The energy required to crush my single paper loops can be tested and computed. It is 0.118 Joules.

The potential energy of the dropped mass was enough to crush 8 loops flat. But that is only the EMPTY SPACE DISTANCE not the distance through the structure. The drop damaged 9 loops. 5 were crushed flat and 4 were partially crushed. TEN YEARS of this 9/11 insanity would be hilarious if it did not show that the physics profession was composed of pathetic assholes. Of course it could not have dragged on for this long if the physicists were not pathetic assholes. It would have been resolved in SIX MONTHS. We should have been told there was no way airliners could do that to skyscrapers that big.

Now they have spent TEN YEARS painting themselves into a corner. How can they even come out and say that it is important to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the towers? They would just show how ridiculous they were for not demanding the information NINE YEARS AGO.

9/11 is the Piltdown Man Incident of the 21st century.

psik

There is no delusions. Only fact. They collapsed. We can all agree on that, right? Therefore, the known laws of physics were applied and there is nothing else to truly investigate.

Also, the model you have is perfect for a class experiment but it does not apply to 9/11. If you feel it does, that would mean you also feel you could build a new WTC based on your model which is not true. Therefore, if you cannot create a correct model you cannot provide the information needed to be thorough.

Also, who has painted themselves into a corner except for truthers such as yourself? I think also your ability to call the entire science and engineering community your colorful description shows that you do not want to know the truth or do additional research to find the truth you think is out there.

No matter the amount of concrete and steel that were used, it is not applicable because the NIST investigation is to find how to make sure this does not happen again. To make sure that buildings are designed with better fail safes than the WTC. The fact that they both stood after being slammed with the airliners is a testament in its own right to the engineering that is used everyday to build anything from a shed to the Burj..

Now, you have been provided links to blueprints, links stating what steel was used and at what level, You have to take the time to calculate each floor and since there are voer 200 it is an arduous task. This is where computers come into play.

Those of you stating that computer models cannot be trusted or do not show the damage are incorrect. If that is the case, you are stating that all computer models are bunk. You cannot pick and choose and say that the physical modeling of skyscrapers does not follow physics but the software used to design a new jet is.

Also, if you want to create a viable model, it is not that difficult. You need inner and outer support though, not like what you have. Also, in your video, you are showing a pancake collapse which did not happen so once again it is inapplicable. This is why I have asked what the frame of reference you feel is used in your comparison would apply to 9/11 and I do not think they are similar.

Originally posted by esdad71

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Engineers haven't done that because in the non-truther real world the existing models suffice for the things that the engineers from NIST and other engineers wanted to know.

So all you can do is come up with EXCUSES to claim that your DELUSIONS are REAL.



The energy required to crush my single paper loops can be tested and computed. It is 0.118 Joules.

The potential energy of the dropped mass was enough to crush 8 loops flat. But that is only the EMPTY SPACE DISTANCE not the distance through the structure. The drop damaged 9 loops. 5 were crushed flat and 4 were partially crushed. TEN YEARS of this 9/11 insanity would be hilarious if it did not show that the physics profession was composed of pathetic assholes. Of course it could not have dragged on for this long if the physicists were not pathetic assholes. It would have been resolved in SIX MONTHS. We should have been told there was no way airliners could do that to skyscrapers that big.

Now they have spent TEN YEARS painting themselves into a corner. How can they even come out and say that it is important to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the towers? They would just show how ridiculous they were for not demanding the information NINE YEARS AGO.

9/11 is the Piltdown Man Incident of the 21st century.

psik

There is no delusions. Only fact. They collapsed. We can all agree on that, right? Therefore, the known laws of physics were applied and there is nothing else to truly investigate.

They were DESTROYED. That is a FACT!

Was it a COLLAPSE? Could the portion above the impact zone in the north tower fall and destroy everything below? That is the question.

But how can it be answered if we aren't even given accurate data on the steel and concrete on every level? People that choose to BELIEVE don't need data. But in order to KNOW the data is essential.

But if it could happen why should anyone object to freely distributing the information? Unfortunately the building did have to hold itself up therefore every level had to be strong enough to support all of the weight above. So how could 15 stories crush 90 stories in less than 18 seconds. It is so ridiculous it would be hilarious if the crap had not dragged on this long.

www.youtube.com...

So let's see the PhD physicists build a model that can collapse completely.

psik

Originally posted by -PLB-
It was just false hope that you finally understood something.

You were putting words in my mouth, and when I point it out, you insult my intelligence. You obviously are getting pretty emotionally involved in this discussion.

At least you agree on point 3, that is already 1 more than I had expected.

Then why do you intentionally lie and claim that I have agreed to statements you have made when I clearly have not?

So which part of my explanation do you not understand, what do you want me to explain?

As many times as you've asked this by now you should already have your answer. This conversation is quickly devolving into garbage rhetoric and I'm sure you're very happy with that. We were discussing Bazant's paper, which you chose to cite as "proof" of a claim you were making. Yet you immediately started saying you also didn't want to actually talk about that same paper. You only wanted to briefly mention it as "proof" of what you were asserting, and then move on without actually looking at it. Now why would someone behave this way? Really, what could your motivation for that possibly be? The only answer that makes sense, is that you know this paper is garbage but you don't want to see why it's garbage for the millionth time since you already know this. It's pretty obvious you're still in the denial stage.

1) You claimed the falling mass could not be stopped.

I understand you have a difficulty understanding anything concerning physics. So just take my word for it, I never claimed that. I explained that once the first intact floor fails, the next one also has to fail. At least under the conditions in that example. (You can also make up examples where that isn't the case).

Like I said, you are claiming the falling mass couldn't be stopped. If you want to knit-pick (and of course you do, because what else can you do besides lie?) then you are claiming that the falling mass couldn't be stopped after the first intact floor failed. Same end result. You still have no proof of this at all. You deflect to Bazant's paper but as we have seen, you don't actually want to talk about that paper, or even address faults with it. You would rather ignore them and live in an ignorant bliss. If you want to live in ignorance then maybe you should stop coming to ATS, you know?

2) You made up a fictitious scenario and fictitious numbers to support this.

That is correct.

I asked you for a legitimate source using real science instead.
4) You referenced Bazant.

You never asked for a legitimate source. I never put Bazant forward as a source for my explanation. Do you have an extremely bad short term memory? If you want a legitimate source, try physics for dummies or something.

Now I guess you are going to lie again and pretend like you posted physics yourself to justify your own claims. That never happened. I'd love you to prove me wrong by re-posting whatever physics you think you proved your claim with. Instead I know you'll just pile on even more rhetoric and a few more blatant lies since you don't care anymore anyway.

You made up an imaginary scenario, and when I asked for something based in reality, who was it who brought up Bazant's paper again? That's right, it wasn't me, it was you.

5) I am now explaining, along with two others who have just joined in, why Bazant's analysis was wrong.

I understand that you don't want to discuss Bazant's paper. You shouldn't have referenced it in an attempt to back your own claim, then.

So far you have only quoted an external source. You and claim you explaining something? HA. Anyway, I am not interested in discussing Bazants papers with you. Try finding someone more educated to take your place.

Bazant is also an external source, that you brought up. So what's wrong with that? Hypocrite much? You outright refused to even address the paper I posted. You don't even want to talk about Bazant's paper at all, which again, you brought up. All this other rhetoric is nothing but lies and insults to my intelligence and you know it. Does it make you feel good when your position is so untenable that it forces you into nothing but insulting, lying, and outright refusing to discuss things?

reply to post by esdad71

You need inner and outer support though, not like what you have.

I have built a number of halting towers myself.

You can build towers in pretty much any arrangement you like out of pretty much any material you like and it WILL HALT after a number of floors if you apply the methodology I outlined:

Recap-
-Build your tower (or two identical towers).

-Apply a load on top, steadily increasing it until failure occurs or looks set to occur (if you have only one tower).

-Once you have found the maximum capacity multiply that load by 0.5 or 0.33 (even keeping the same load will nevertheless arrest, but it will require a taller structure).

-Drop that load on your construction such that the top floor breaks. The structure must be stable enough to not just topple or kick out at the legs, for obvious reasons. It must be a top-down sequence.

ANY STRUCTURE BUILT UNDER THESE CONDITIONS WILL EVENTUALLY ARREST.
.
I will, furthermore, make the prediction that unless the mass of the falling top is greater than or equal to 50% of the total mass complete collapse cannot occur. This based on observations of Verinage.

If you wish to assert otherwise, build the model (of any material or arrangement you choose) that does not display this behavior.

reply to post by Darkwing01


No, you cannot build it in any fashion as that is not how the building is designed and that is what is discussed here. Like I stated, I did not say his model did not show a physics property but rather it does not fit this type of building for testing to show how the lower floors would have resisted. You are also implying that it feel straight down and it did not.

We are not debating whether or not the model is correct but if it applies to 9/11.

reply to post by esdad71


Is it really necessary to explain to you that "any arrangement" necessarily includes any arrangement that you WOULD deem to be a suitable analogue.

Apparently you have to state the obvious for OS'ers.

You are also implying that it feel straight down and it did not.

Really?

So how do you explain the building being destroyed all the way to the base if it wasn't straight down?

Also, if review the context I think you will find I am speaking about the Bazant hypothesis, which very much DOES go straight down, in fact it is technically not possible for it to do anything BUT.

Methinks you are reaching a bit.

Originally posted by bsbray11
You were putting words in my mouth, and when I point it out, you insult my intelligence. You obviously are getting pretty emotionally involved in this discussion.

Words such as? And yes, I am very emotional here

Then why do you intentionally lie and claim that I have agreed to statements you have made when I clearly have not?

What statements? So you disagree with point 3? You come across as very confused.

As many times as you've asked this by now you should already have your answer. This conversation is quickly devolving into garbage rhetoric and I'm sure you're very happy with that. We were discussing Bazant's paper, which you chose to cite as "proof" of a claim you were making. Yet you immediately started saying you also didn't want to actually talk about that same paper. You only wanted to briefly mention it as "proof" of what you were asserting, and then move on without actually looking at it. Now why would someone behave this way? Really, what could your motivation for that possibly be? The only answer that makes sense, is that you know this paper is garbage but you don't want to see why it's garbage for the millionth time since you already know this. It's pretty obvious you're still in the denial stage.

Yep, you are confused. You wanted to discuss Bazant, not me (at least not with you). I told you it was irrelevant. But as soon as you saw the name Bazant you short circuited.

Like I said, you are claiming the falling mass couldn't be stopped. If you want to knit-pick (and of course you do, because what else can you do besides lie?) then you are claiming that the falling mass couldn't be stopped after the first intact floor failed. Same end result. You still have no proof of this at all. You deflect to Bazant's paper but as we have seen, you don't actually want to talk about that paper, or even address faults with it. You would rather ignore them and live in an ignorant bliss. If you want to live in ignorance then maybe you should stop coming to ATS, you know?

I do not required Bazant for it. You can forget about Bazant, he is completely irrelevant for my explanation. So which part of my explanation do you not understand, what do you want me to explain?

Now I guess you are going to lie again and pretend like you posted physics yourself to justify your own claims. That never happened. I'd love you to prove me wrong by re-posting whatever physics you think you proved your claim with. Instead I know you'll just pile on even more rhetoric and a few more blatant lies since you don't care anymore anyway.

You made up an imaginary scenario, and when I asked for something based in reality, who was it who brought up Bazant's paper again? That's right, it wasn't me, it was you.

So which part of my explanation do you not understand, what do you want me to explain?

Bazant is also an external source, that you brought up. So what's wrong with that? Hypocrite much? You outright refused to even address the paper I posted. You don't even want to talk about Bazant's paper at all, which again, you brought up. All this other rhetoric is nothing but lies and insults to my intelligence and you know it. Does it make you feel good when your position is so untenable that it forces you into nothing but insulting, lying, and outright refusing to discuss things?

Ehm, because I am not claiming I did the work that Bazant did myself now do I? You really do not understand and are completely confused why I brought up Bazant and why it is in no way relevant to the explanation I wrote.

Anyway, as usual `discussing` anything with you is going nowhere. It has been fun

reply to post by psikeyhackr


I don´t really see how the way it is in reality is in any way an excuse. If you don´t like it, too bad for you.

reply to post by Darkwing01


A model is created with a certain goal, to explain or predict a specific aspect of reality. Bazant states in his paper that his model is unrealistic, because he makes unrealistic assumptions if favor of the collapse arresting. When such a model has as outcome that shows the collapse would not arrest, you can conclude a more realistic model would also show that collapse would not arrest.