The NIST report, start to finish

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by bsbray11

 

No, i was trying to state this paper is not something that should be used as absolute proof but at the same time is not a poorly written paper. I have read it. It does not seem so far fetched except in a few areas but it is better then people saying space lasers took out the WTC.

Here is the problem, the paper seems fine to you because you think there are no impossible physics, and other nonsense such as the constant dismissal of the laws of motion etc.
It's hard to tell if something is wrong when you don't have the information to know it's wrong. This is how people are fooled into believing the impossible. You must know this on a certain level because you always make laim excuses for the papers failings.

No one here us arguing for lasers, or any of the other nonsense you like pretend we believe in order to feel superior. I find it odd you would even claim that after bsbray and I have been discussing nothing but physics with you for weeks now. This just proves you have no argument, and as all OSer, you revert to bringing up nonsense in order to simply dismiss a poster who is putting forth a better argument than you. Bad form my friend.

Originally posted by esdad71
No, i was trying to state this paper is not something that should be used as absolute proof but at the same time is not a poorly written paper.

I guess what constitutes whether or not a paper is "poorly written" is a matter of opinion. But trying to make a point using impossible physics and erroneous assumptions qualifies the paper as "poorly written" to me.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by esdad71
No, i was trying to state this paper is not something that should be used as absolute proof but at the same time is not a poorly written paper.

I guess what constitutes whether or not a paper is "poorly written" is a matter of opinion. But trying to make a point using impossible physics and erroneous assumptions qualifies the paper as "poorly written" to me.

Can you show me specifics in the report so I can take a look? Not sure where you mean and if you are picking out something I am not seeing maybe it would help me. Please don;t just say the whole report. Thanks.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by -PLB-

 

The paper was drafted less than a week after the attack and, in his words,

This paper presents a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of the towers ofWorld Trade Center in New York
on September 11, 2001. The analysis shows that if prolonged heating caused the majority of columns of a single floor to lose their load
carrying capacity, the whole tower was doomed.

A simplified and approximate analysis. If you read the paper from an outside point of view it is actually very informative.

The fact that he drafted it in less than a week just shows how dumb he is. We don't have the distribution of steel after TEN YEARS. Of course if we had accurate data about that it would just show how dumb the whole idea of a straight down collapse is.

For two weeks after 9/11 the so called "collapse" of those skyscrapers was all I thought about. I didn't do any math and I concluded that the worst that could happen was the tops falling down the side. The problem is that the lower portion had to be too strong to be crushed and to be that strong it had to have too much mass. The top could not come straight down destroying everything below. The lower portion also had to be strong enough to pull the upper portion back in line as it swayed in the wind.

The physics profession has spent almost ten years making a fool of itself. The concept of "peer review" is going to become garbage. Where is a physical collapsing model from any engineering school?

This is all psychological trash of people RATIONALIZING what they prefer to BELIEVE.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


If the WTC had been constructed in a different fashion I think they would have had a much better chance of standing longer than they did but then you would have had a hell of a CD to do that would have taken months. They could not have been salvaged with the columns that had been severed. Just watch a video of the construction. I would never go back in that building.

You also would have actually have seen the twin towers to understand the power that was released when the initiation of the collapse started. I have said it before that I think the fact they did not fall over from the impact shows that the design worked and allowed people to escape.

Originally posted by esdad71
Can you show me specifics in the report so I can take a look?

Do you have a very short memory, or are you just trying to play dumb for the readers?

I already told you this:

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by esdad71
Look It was drafted less than a week after the attack and, in his words, ...
A simplified and approximate analysis. If you read the paper from an outside point of view it is actually very informative.

So you're making excuses for all the bad physics in it but still find it "very informative." Which part is more informative to you?: The part where he incorrectly assumes the full energy of the upper block would be absorbed only by the first floor below and by no other part of the structure beneath? The part where he assumes a full 1-story free-fall drop before the upper block touches anything? The part where he makes up numbers based on nothing for the redundancy of the steel in the building, and makes up ridiculous numbers for up to 95% of the total building mass staying within the footprints instead of going out over the sides?

What do you know... This was all in a response to you on the previous thread page.

This paper also outlines critical flaws in Bazant's physics:

www.journalof911studies.com...

reply to post by bsbray11


reply to post by bsbray11


I asked you to outline it, not a link. I have read the paper and the link and I want specifics. It is not about short memory. When people ask about things with the NIST report I give the Appendix, page and a link. You are speaking in too broad of terms to state that a scientist of his stature is incorrect.

When I said poorly written, I meant it seems to jump around like someone who is creating a term paper or project plan. A few days after the attack and to me it is an outline of needs to be researched and identified.

I want you to prove it wrong and not use links. That is the problem. Most people believe in physics but for some reason, on one day in the last 10000 years or so, you believe that physics was not present. To do that, you have to disprove the theory set forth by Bazant.

Take Appendix II on page 5 and prove that it is all incoherent rants. Give us your proof.

Originally posted by esdad71
I asked you to outline it, not a link.

Well Jesus Christ, sorry for the inconvenience. I gave you both.

I have read the paper and the link and I want specifics. It is not about short memory. When people ask about things with the NIST report I give the Appendix, page and a link. You are speaking in too broad of terms to state that a scientist of his stature is incorrect.

You must not even be reading what I am posting. If you don't read, what good is it to keep telling you specifics? Incorrectly assuming that the full kinetic energy of the upper block would affect only the uppermost floor of the lower block, is specific. That is a physics error. So are all the others listed. Stop playing dumb.

reply to post by bsbray11


Also, I think it was only the draft that refers to his paper in NIST's report, correct? Nice how in your link he tries to tie them all together with his final line and emphatic use of phrases like...

"Could not/cannot not/never would/more likely scenario"

all words used to push your views in one direction and discredit the paper. Ever take a Dale Carnegie or Six Sigma class? You can sell ice to eskimoes if you use the right words.

**ATTENTION**

This thread is being watched closely by the staff and any off-topic, rude or inflamatory remarks will be removed. We ask that you please review the following threads:

Mod Note: Courtesy is Mandatory – Please Review Link.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions of Use – Please Review This Link.

**POLICY STATEMENT FOR THE 9/11 FORUM: ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ**,

YOU are responsible for your own posts.

No other warnings will be given before removal of posts and potential loss of posting privileges occurs.

Thank You

ATS Staff

Originally posted by esdad71
Also, I think it was only the draft that refers to his paper in NIST's report, correct?

I wouldn't know or care, since, like I said, he's had to revise his paper a number of times and the latest of them still contains errors in that he is forced to assume data that contradicts physical observations in order for his model to work at all, such as assuming 95% of the mass of either building remained within the footprints, which obviously did not happen. All of this and more are explained in Ross's paper which you have only slandered so far.

all words used to push your views in one direction and discredit the paper.

Sorry esdad, but the paper discredits itself by using junk science. Maybe you would like to explain to me how the upper block of falling building could fall onto the structure below, without columns at the ground level experiencing any additional loading. That is the kind of nonsense Bazant assumes, to force all the energy only where he needs it. And the energy and forces he assumes are exaggerated in the first place, also because of his junk science, assuming free-fall drops, nearly all of the mass being retained for the entire collapse, etc.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by esdad71
I asked you to outline it, not a link.

Well Jesus Christ, sorry for the inconvenience. I gave you both.

I have read the paper and the link and I want specifics. It is not about short memory. When people ask about things with the NIST report I give the Appendix, page and a link. You are speaking in too broad of terms to state that a scientist of his stature is incorrect.

You must not even be reading what I am posting. If you don't read, what good is it to keep telling you specifics? Incorrectly assuming that the full kinetic energy of the upper block would affect only the uppermost floor of the lower block, is specific. That is a physics error. So are all the others listed. Stop playing dumb.

No inconvenience, I was just asking for a specific instance. Can you explain to me how it is a physics error? Simply saying it is does not help. I mean, I am just trying to understand where YOU think it is wrong.

Originally posted by esdad71
No inconvenience, I was just asking for a specific instance. Can you explain to me how it is a physics error? Simply saying it is does not help. I mean, I am just trying to understand where YOU think it is wrong.

Are you asking me to give you a physics lesson?


Gordon Ross himself explained it if you had ever bothered to actually read what I posted for you. See if you can understand this:

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

In case you are still confused let me offer a simple example.


Let's say you're some kind of acrobat and 10 people are standing balanced on your shoulders. Then 2 or 3 more people suddenly drop onto the highest person's shoulders. According to Bazant's use of physics in his paper, you would not feel the people jumping onto the shoulders of the people on your own shoulders. The force would not be dissipated downwards at all and instead would be solely utilized in crushing the top person's shoulder bones. That is the junk science Bazant is peddling in his paper, amongst other errors that have also been listed here repeatedly for you. If you can't understand this example, or the issue as Ross explains it above, then there is no more help I can provide for you. You will just have to believe whatever you have the most faith in, as always.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

If the WTC had been constructed in a different fashion I think they would have had a much better chance of standing longer than they did but then you would have had a hell of a CD to do that would have taken months. They could not have been salvaged with the columns that had been severed. Just watch a video of the construction. I would never go back in that building.

You also would have actually have seen the twin towers to understand the power that was released when the initiation of the collapse started. I have said it before that I think the fact they did not fall over from the impact shows that the design worked and allowed people to escape.

What utter [snip]

A skyscraper that tall with that much floorspace on each level could not be very different from the WTC. People want to blame the collapse on the tube-in-tube design and then they want to ignore the core that was not really a tube. We can't even get a layot of the horizontal beams.

Woops, they have nearly completely disappeared. The horizontal steel had to be more than twice the length of the vertical steel on each level but we don't hear about that.

psik

PROFANITY
Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by esdad71
No inconvenience, I was just asking for a specific instance. Can you explain to me how it is a physics error? Simply saying it is does not help. I mean, I am just trying to understand where YOU think it is wrong.

Are you asking me to give you a physics lesson?


Gordon Ross himself explained it if you had ever bothered to actually read what I posted for you. See if you can understand this:

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

In case you are still confused let me offer a simple example.


Let's say you're some kind of acrobat and 10 people are standing balanced on your shoulders. Then 2 or 3 more people suddenly drop onto the highest person's shoulders. According to Bazant's use of physics in his paper, you would not feel the people jumping onto the shoulders of the people on your own shoulders. The force would not be dissipated downwards at all and instead would be solely utilized in crushing the top person's shoulder bones. That is the junk science Bazant is peddling in his paper, amongst other errors that have also been listed here repeatedly for you. If you can't understand this example, or the issue as Ross explains it above, then there is no more help I can provide for you. You will just have to believe whatever you have the most faith in, as always.

I do not need a lesson, I want to know if you understand what you are trying to push. I think this is about perception and how one reads something someone writes. Like I asked you, I do not want validation from a link I would like you to debunk another part of his paper since it is all trash. Can you tell me what is wrong with the section I requested?

I does not matter if it can be felt on the lower floors. I want to know how he can state that the energy is not transferred when it hits the upper level of the lower section?. He is stating that the load should have held but it didn't. We understand that it should have but him stating the reason it could not happen is based on energy absorbed thru elastic and plastic strain on the columns makes no sense at all. If this guy thinks if the load is not distributed properly it will not fall into itself when the mass of the upper floors combined with the velocity of it falling those floors (15 feet per floor?) and the force of gravity upon that mass would not cause it to collapse I would not let him change my oil.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


No, it is quite true. It is a unique design and it did what it was supposed to do. It stood to allow escape. If there were not the fires and the disruption of the sprinklers it could very well have stayed standing and but it would have to have been demoed. No question.

If you look you can find all of the information that you are raging about. Concrete...steel..i have given you links and you fail to do what is needed to prove your theory and do the homework. Like Dean Yeager said...

You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle. Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman!

Originally posted by esdad71
I do not need a lesson, I want to know if you understand what you are trying to push. I think this is about perception and how one reads something someone writes. Like I asked you, I do not want validation from a link I would like you to debunk another part of his paper since it is all trash. Can you tell me what is wrong with the section I requested?

I'm not playing any more games with you esdad. I just posted the same information in post after post and you have repeatedly totally ignored it to continue on with rhetoric.

I does not matter if it can be felt on the lower floors. I want to know how he can state that the energy is not transferred when it hits the upper level of the lower section?

Saying that gravity loads being transferred to the ground "does not matter".... That speaks for itself my friend.

His paper assumes it in the fact that he does not adjust for energy/force dissipation/absorption into the lower structure. In reality you would be able to feel the dynamic gravity load at the bottom and so would the columns. Stating otherwise would be the same as stating that gravity loads aren't transferred down to the ground, which flies in the face of civil engineering everywhere. If this were accurate then buildings could be built in the clouds. Bazant does not account for that absorption by the lower structure anywhere, pretends it doesn't happen (except for the upper block transferring its loads to the contact point with the structure below of course) and therefore has an illegitimate amount of energy to play with as he imagines the top floor of the lower block being destroyed off in his fantasy land.

reply to post by bsbray11


If it is that inaccurate, why would the ASCE publish it? You are quitting because you cannot prove anything. Why have you not responded to the Appendix II question? If you are so versed and feel it incorrect, prove it on your own or can you not do it?

Originally posted by esdad71
If it is that inaccurate, why would the ASCE publish it?

Trash papers are published. Are you saying every single peer-reviewed paper ever published is automatically scientifically proven? It seems you don't understand what the point of publishing or even peer-review really is.

You are quitting because you cannot prove anything. Why have you not responded to the Appendix II question? If you are so versed and feel it incorrect, prove it on your own or can you not do it?

I have no idea what in the hell you are talking about. I'm not quitting anything because I'm still here responding to you aren't I? You asked what was wrong with Bazant's paper and I showed you plenty of information. Now you're asking me to show you something wrong with a section you have cherry-picked from somewhere. Is this a game to you?

reply to post by bsbray11


No, I am not saying all papers, you are. You are also saying that trashed papers are published all the time, such as the link you provided. Was it published by the ASCE like Bazant? Can you name 2 other papers that Bazant procured where he has so blatantly produced physics garbage as you had stated. This is not a game, it is a forum where ideas are presented, challenged and must be backed up. Why so defensive? You said you were done so I would take that as quitting which is why i said it.

I think anyone would take this resume...

Bažant, who is generally regarded as the world leader in research on scaling in the mechanics of solids,[2] has published over 450 refereed journal articles[3] and is the author of six books. He is an ISI highly cited researcher in Engineering, which places him among the 250 most cited authors in all engineering fields worldwide. He was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 1996 and the National Academy of Sciences in 2002, and is a Registered Structural Engineer in the state of Illinois. He has supervised 60 Ph.D.s in addition to receiving six honorary doctorates of his own (ČVUT 1991, TU Karlsruhe 1997, CU Boulder 2000, Politecnico di Milano 2001, INSA Lyon 2004, and TU Vienna 2005).

The man is no Stephen Jones.



Also, I am not cherry picking, you are by using someone else's objections but not being able to prove them. And the statement of not feeling it, he said that, not me. I was just pointing it out.