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.

 

The NIST report, start to finish

page: 25
8
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
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.


So let's see your model that can completely collapse in REALITY.

Here is mine:

www.youtube.com...

Don't tell me. Let me guess. The WTC was not made of paper.

That is true. It weighed more than 3.5 pounds also. So how could the dynamic to static load capacity be so much less than that for paper?

psik




posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
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.


Saying Bazant is irrelevant is lying through your teeth when you were the one that brought up his paper in defense of your own garbage claims in the first place.

Since you obviously have no intention even trying to defend what you claimed was "proof" of your lies, I have no reason perpetuating this circle jerk.

At this point even you know you have no case, and you're just trolling. Since Bazant is so "irrelevant" now I don't guess I have to worry about you claiming he proved anything ever again.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Irrelevant for my example. Since you keep rambling on about Bazant I take you agree with it then, but or not willing to admit. If not, which part of my explanation do you not understand, what do you want me to explain?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Irrelevant for my example. Since you keep rambling on about Bazant I take you agree with it then, but or not willing to admit. If not, which part of my explanation do you not understand, what do you want me to explain?


Your "example" used a physically unrealistic (super-simplified) scenario of made-up numbers and is of no consequence to anything in the first place. Remember, this is why I asked you for an "example" that used real numbers and more accurate physical models? Which was, according to you... Bazant's paper?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




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.


Okay, so let's apply your methodology then:

Imagine a fish in the atmosphere of a planet.

Now here comes the unrealistic assumption in favor of the fish surviving in this atmosphere: The atmosphere is made out of 100% water. Wow, super unrealistic! And yet the fish dies almost instantly on this planet.

Conclusion: Fish cannot live on any planet.

Yes friends, you too can mangle logic to prove all kinds of things. Sane people, meanwhile, will restrict themselves to the absolutely strict and immutable rules of logic to come to only valid and sound conclusions.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


As for not wanting to discuss Bazant's hypothesis, kindly refer to the title of this thread: NIST relied on the Bazant theory to support their collapse scenario, it is, as such, the ONLY relevant scenario in connection with the NIST report.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


But your logic is flawed. If you find that a fish can not survive in the atmosphere, how can your conclusion be that it also won't survive on the planet? You changed the premesis.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


That is how engineers model things. They make a model as simple as possible while it still explains the phenomena. Just saying "it is not accurate enough" is not a valid critique. No model is 100% accurate. You have to point out why the model is not accurate enough for its purpose.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


My point was that you cannot draw sound conclusions from unsound premises. I was being sarcastic.

Even then you misread it: I never assumed a fish cannot survive in the atmosphere, YOU assumed it even after I stated that it was an unrealistic IN FAVOR of the fish's survival.

FYI the real unstated premise was that fish also need food and oxygen and a lack of generally deadly things to not die. The conclusion doesn't follow both because of these unstated premises (i.e. my argument was invalid) AND because of the unsound premises.

The purpose of the little story was to illustrate to you that unsound is unsound, invalid is invalid, even if you make unsound assumptions ostensibly IN FAVOR of a particular conclusion. Of course engineers simplify things, but they are not permitted to make false assumptions in favor of simplicity, please review the SECOND part of Occam's razor.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Let me show you another little logic trick to illustrate the point:

Assume Bazant's theory is right.
Assume that the building was super strong because it was made from heavy steel.
Assume that the structure was super weak because it was 90% air.

Therefore either the building was strong or it was blown up by aliens.

But the building was weak (premise 3).

Therefore it was blown up by aliens.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

You see?

I made a 100% optimistic assumption IN YOUR FAVOR and snuck in some unsound premises and hey presto! A valid argument proving that space beams from planet Zorkon was the real culprit.

If this is your idea of how engineers do their work we may as well go back to living in caves.
edit on 23-5-2011 by Darkwing01 because: Caves

edit on 23-5-2011 by Darkwing01 because: heavy



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


In a model you always make assumptions that are not conform reality. A model is a simplification of reality, ignoring certain factors that do not matter for the outcome that much. All your examples make no sense whatsoever, you ignore factors that matter a lot for the outcome.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


Let me give you a counter example. You created a model where you tie a weight of 100kg to a rope to see if it fails. The result is that the rope will not fail. You now want to carry a weight of 10kg with the rope. According to your logic the model is useless to determine if the rope can carry it, as in the model you used a value that was a factor 10 off. That is not even close to reality.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




In a model you always make assumptions that are not conform reality. A model is a simplification of reality, ignoring certain factors that do not matter for the outcome that much


Perfectly true of course, but the unrealistic assumptions that Bazant made very much did affect the outcome, that's the problem.

Once you omit those unrealistic assumptions your conclusion does not follow, that is why Bazant's model is incapable of predicting realistic behavior and it on the basis of this inability to predict real events that we reject it.

Of course you could go build a model that does behave in the way Bazant describes and astound everybody, but given that Bazant assumed some pretty far out things I wouldn't rate your chances very high.



Let me give you a counter example. You created a model where you tie a weight of 100kg to a rope to see if it fails. The result is that the rope will not fail. You now want to carry a weight of 10kg with the rope. According to your logic the model is useless to determine if the rope can carry it, as in the model you used a value that was a factor 10 off. That is not even close to reality.


Your conclusion that the rope can carry the 10kg is invalid because it relies on the hidden premise that the nature of the material in question is irrelevant.

The rope cannot carry 10kg's of water or argon gas. It also cannot carry 10kg's of neutrino's, or anti-matter rocks. It cannot carry normal rocks that are not securely fastened or too large or sharp to be fastened. It cannot carry 10kg's of teflon if the fastening material is some sort of glue that doesn't stick to teflon.

Invalid arguments are just as bad, if not worse, than unsound ones. Even though your conclusion seems sensible you cannot draw it on the basis of your story.




edit on 23-5-2011 by Darkwing01 because: Counter example.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


Let me give you a counter example. You created a model where you tie a weight of 100kg to a rope to see if it fails. The result is that the rope will not fail. You now want to carry a weight of 10kg with the rope. According to your logic the model is useless to determine if the rope can carry it, as in the model you used a value that was a factor 10 off. That is not even close to reality.


But let's grant your unstated assumption for the sake of argument.

Let us add one more assumption: If the model can carry weight X then it can carry weight X-Y where Y is some positive value.

This is an assumption that can be repeatedly tested against reality, we don't just assume it, we can also do as many tests as we care to do to try and find a counter-example. On the basis of our inability to find a counter-example we assume it is true.

Thus we have, by means of empirical observation, established a new assumption which allows us to validly draw the conclusion that the 10kg weight can be carried.

But the key here, I hope you noticed, is EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION. That is the sine qua non of science.

We accept things that can be empirically falsified, and reject those which can't.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Perfectly true of course, but the unrealistic assumptions that Bazant made very much did affect the outcome, that's the problem.


Indeed, in favor of collapse arresting.


Once you omit those unrealistic assumptions your conclusion does not follow, that is why Bazant's model is incapable of predicting realistic behavior and it on the basis of this inability to predict real events that we reject it.


His model (at least in his first paper) was not meant to predict realistic collapse behavior, but to prove there was enough energy available. And that it did. You can't dismiss a model simply because it does not model the thing you want it to model.


Your conclusion that the rope can carry the 10kg is invalid because it relies on the hidden premise that the nature of the material in question is irrelevant.

The rope cannot carry 10kg's of water or argon gas. It also cannot carry 10kg's of neutrino's, or anti-matter rocks. It cannot carry normal rocks that are not securely fastened or too large or sharp to be fastened. It cannot carry 10kg's of teflon if the fastening material is some sort of glue that doesn't stick to teflon.

Invalid arguments are just as bad, if not worse, than unsound ones. Even though your conclusion seems sensible you cannot draw it on the basis of your story.


Sure, you can add as many additional assumtions or conditions as you think are relevant. But some assumptions are obvious and do not require to be specified. Ïf you think assumptions are missing you don't put the model in the trash but you ask for clarification.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
That is how engineers model things. They make a model as simple as possible while it still explains the phenomena.


Unfortunately you have not explained anything, but you've already said you don't want to talk about that. I'm not talking about your made-up, based-on-nothing thought experiment that you called an "example." I'm talking about Bazant's paper, which, as bad as it is, is still better than the dribble you posted here.


Just saying "it is not accurate enough" is not a valid critique.


That's not what I said. I posted a paper by Gordon Ross earlier but like I said, you didn't want to talk about that, and even said so yourself. You only want to talk to people who only agree with you apparently, and don't want any critique period.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Unfortunately you have not explained anything, but you've already said you don't want to talk about that. I'm not talking about your made-up, based-on-nothing thought experiment that you called an "example." I'm talking about Bazant's paper, which, as bad as it is, is still better than the dribble you posted here.


I know you want to talk about Bazants work but I am not interested to discuss it with you. Its not even the topic of this thread.



That's not what I said. I posted a paper by Gordon Ross earlier but like I said, you didn't want to talk about that, and even said so yourself. You only want to talk to people who only agree with you apparently, and don't want any critique period.


If I only wanted to talk with people who agree with me I would not be on ATS but rather on JREF. The reason I do not really favor discussing Bazant with you is because we already did that and went nowhere, you lack the proper education to make a coherent argument. Sure, take it as a victory, truthers require meanless victories on a frequent basis to keep their faith in check.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
I know you want to talk about Bazants work but I am not interested to discuss it with you. Its not even the topic of this thread.


Fine, but if you don't want to talk about something, please don't bring it up in the future. If you really don't want to talk you can just ignore me. You want to be argumentative, so you keep responding to me, but you don't want to see that you're wrong either, so you don't want to discuss the actual paper you claimed was proof.
It's immature and annoying, to try to show you problems with a paper and just get "lalala not listening not going to talk about it" in response.


If I only wanted to talk with people who agree with me I would not be on ATS but rather on JREF. The reason I do not really favor discussing Bazant with you is because we already did that and went nowhere, you lack the proper education to make a coherent argument.


Of course, just retreat to insulting my education when you can't defend trash science in a trash paper without embarrassing yourself. And for the record the paper I posted in response to Bazant's was by a mechanical engineer, Gordon Ross, not myself.


Sure, take it as a victory, truthers require meanless victories on a frequent basis to keep their faith in check.


There is no victory in you intentionally dumbing yourself down, or being too cowardly to discuss gross physics errors in Bazant's paper.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
PLB claimed earlier in the thread that Bazant's model was enough to prove that a collapse could not be arrested after the first undamaged floor failed. But immediately he refused to discuss the actual assumptions of that model.


This is the first error with that paper that mechanical engineer Gordon Ross points out, which shows why the amount of force Bazant assumed to destroy the first intact floor was much more energy than would have actually been available:


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.


www.journalof911studies.com...


This directly relates to PLB's claim, and is what he himself offered to me as "proof" of his claims, and yet now he says it's irrelevant and outright refuses to discuss this at all.



Rather than continue circle-jerk bickering about nothing I figured I would post again what PLB does not want to see or talk about.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





Indeed, in favor of collapse arresting.


Oh come now.

That is like asking whether an apple will fall from a tree on planet Jupiter while also assuming that a hydrogen bomb went off underneath it.

You cannot draw sound conclusions from unsound premises, just because you make one favorable assumption does not magically make all the others disappear.

This is pretty elementary stuff right here.

One plus one does not equal three even for really big values of one.
edit on 23-5-2011 by Darkwing01 because: math

edit on 23-5-2011 by Darkwing01 because: even



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
You cannot draw sound conclusions from unsound premises, just because you make one favorable assumption does not magically make all the others disappear.

This is pretty elementary stuff right here.


That's why he says he doesn't want to discuss the Bazant paper.

When you start making these points clearly to him over and over, the excuses he begins making up are just embarrassing to even have to read.


What I posted above isn't even metaphorical. It is literal and applies directly to the paper in question. But he doesn't want to discuss that. He's happy keeping it in the realm of unrealistic metaphors and rhetoric.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join