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.

 

One Smart Chic

page: 10
19
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
You pretty much miss the point here. Since Ross didn't know whether Bazant forgot a safety factor it doesn't matter what factor Ross used or how he got it.


You are not only missing the point, you are intentionally ignoring it. Again:


Neither one of them explicitly showed what safety factor they used in their math, but you accept this in Bazant's paper and reject it in Ross's, because you admit having more faith in Bazant's paper even while finding fault in Ross's for doing the exact same thing. If it's wrong in one of their papers then it's wrong in both of them.


I figure it'll take about 6 months for this one to sink in, at the rate we've been going.


Besides, I pointed out what Ross did wrong.


Where?


When are you going to point out Bazants mistake?


I repeatedly point them out, only to have you blatantly ignore them. He assumes a pure free-fall drop that didn't exist, to start everything off, providing himself with an unrealistic amount of energy to work with. He outright ignores the energy/force absorption of the lower floors of the towers, thus providing himself with even more unrealistic amounts of energy. He assumes 95% of the mass utilized its full kinetic energy for the entire duration of either "collapse" just because his results would otherwise be way the hell off, despite the fact that there is no actual evidence for this, giving himself even more non-existent energy to work with.


And again, it is not faith, I gave reasonable reasons, but I understand why you ignore those reasons.


And I understand why someone in denial would project their own faults onto someone else. 'Bazant is right because I agree with him' is not a "reasonable reason."



So you admit not even knowing what you yourself just called "uninteresting well known physics"?


Lets take the "test" you gave me some time age about a capacitor and a resistor as example. What I calculated there is an example of "uninteresting well known physics" (mostly math). Something like that would never be included in a paper. Yet you didn't even have the slightest clue what it all meant.


I recall a very different situation that ended with you arguing with an academic paper from a major educational institution, that explicitly spoke of capacitive transients in AC circuits. Maybe I should post that again just to see you squirm again?

If you actually want to get back to the topic at hand and what you just now said, you claimed that maybe Bazant didn't show his work because it was too basic. Funny that you never took that for granted when Ross used a figure that simply required multiply a force by a distance. But besides that, you don't even know what in the hell is so basic that he left out! You have no clue what you are talking about but claim that it "must be" so basic, that's why Bazant didn't show his work, so it's okay for you to have faith in his paper anyway.



You want to pretend that no one has challenged Bazant's work while we are in the middle of discussing a paper by a professional engineer that challenges it on a number of grounds.


Sure people have challenged it. I was talking about a rebuttal, as in disproving it


And you are as wrong about that too, as you are wrong about all the other crap you are saying here to make excuses for Bazant. He obviously used multiple assumptions and erroneous applications of physics optimistic to a "collapse" progressing in his model, all the way to the ground. That is a legitimate rebuttal, plain and simple. You are presenting circular arguments now exactly like a religious zealot.



The safety factor issue is one of many pointed out in Ross's paper. And if you did any research at all into the safety factors of the WTC Tower columns then you would immediately see why that is not a cut-and-dry issue anyway, but I don't expect you to try now and more than you ever have.


Well, at least we can scrap this one from the list then. We could of course start addressing the other assertions, but I would first like you to acknowledge that is one is indeed baseless.


No, we can address the other assumptions Bazant made all year if you want to keep going in circles, but you have to also admit you are taking Bazant's accounting for structural redundancy (aka the safety factor) on total blind faith. You even admitted already you don't understand it, even immediately after claiming it must have been so basic that he didn't even need to show his work. You really can't see how ridiculous your argument is?




And all of it was illogical, opinionated nonsense that amounts to "Bazant believes what I do so he's right, and Ross doesn't so he's wrong."


So you think that a peer review process is opinionated nonsense? So how exactly do you differentiate between valid scientific work and pseudoscience? This is a serious question I would like you to answer, no dancing around the bush please.


Let's just consider one of Bazant's erroneous applications of physics. The lower floors would have absorbed some energy for every floor-by-floor impact Bazant assumes. Yet he totally ignores this and in doing so creates a model that is significantly detached from reality and gives him more energy to work with than he otherwise would have. Same for assuming the free-fall drop, and same for assuming 95% of the total mass was fully available when convenient for him. That is how you differentiate between valid science and pseudoscience, because real science does not employ erroneous assumptions just to force a model to work.



Because he correctly points out all of the erroneous physical assumptions in Bazant's paper that I mentioned above and have been mentioning to you for weeks.


So in other works, because it agrees with your presupposition, as we know you lack the qualification to make a well informed opinion about Bazants work. Yes, there is again a cloud of irony hanging in the air.


That cloud of irony must be hovering most densely around yourself, considering you just admitted yourself above that you have no idea where Bazant got his math from and just take it on blind faith.




posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You are not only missing the point, you are intentionally ignoring it. Again:


Neither one of them explicitly showed what safety factor they used in their math, but you accept this in Bazant's paper and reject it in Ross's, because you admit having more faith in Bazant's paper even while finding fault in Ross's for doing the exact same thing. If it's wrong in one of their papers then it's wrong in both of them.


I figure it'll take about 6 months for this one to sink in, at the rate we've been going.


You are being optimistic, I think it will take a couple of year to sink in, when you are more developed as human being. I even think you will be ashamed when you read back what you are writing now.

So how exactly can Bazant be wrong about something he didn't even mention?



Where?


Previous couple of pages, where I explained why you can not just take a design safety factor and apply it to the energy consumed. You more or less agreed to that, but you claimed that Ross took that in account, but you never backed that up. Do you have problem with your memory?


I repeatedly point them out, only to have you blatantly ignore them. He assumes a pure free-fall drop that didn't exist, to start everything off, providing himself with an unrealistic amount of energy to work with. He outright ignores the energy/force absorption of the lower floors of the towers, thus providing himself with even more unrealistic amounts of energy. He assumes 95% of the mass utilized its full kinetic energy for the entire duration of either "collapse" just because his results would otherwise be way the hell off, despite the fact that there is no actual evidence for this, giving himself even more non-existent energy to work with.


I am of course specifically talking about this safety factor. Of course you like to switch the subject as soon as you don't know the answer. And once you don't know an answer to the subject you just switched to, you will switch again. After some time you will go to the first subject again, and the circle repeats itself.


And I understand why someone in denial would project their own faults onto someone else. 'Bazant is right because I agree with him' is not a "reasonable reason."


Where exactly did I ever say that? Hint: I didn't. Your delusional mind is making things up again. This is a very disingenuous use of quotes.


I recall a very different situation that ended with you arguing with an academic paper from a major educational institution, that explicitly spoke of capacitive transients in AC circuits. Maybe I should post that again just to see you squirm again?


You recall it differently because you are delusional, or you have some other mental disorder. You have remembered what you wanted to remember.


If you actually want to get back to the topic at hand and what you just now said, you claimed that maybe Bazant didn't show his work because it was too basic. Funny that you never took that for granted when Ross used a figure that simply required multiply a force by a distance. But besides that, you don't even know what in the hell is so basic that he left out! You have no clue what you are talking about but claim that it "must be" so basic, that's why Bazant didn't show his work, so it's okay for you to have faith in his paper anyway.


I gave a very good reason why I questioned Ross. He switched from load safety factor to energy consumed without even mentioning he made a conversion. It is almost like magic.


And you are as wrong about that too, as you are wrong about all the other crap you are saying here to make excuses for Bazant. He obviously used multiple assumptions and erroneous applications of physics optimistic to a "collapse" progressing in his model, all the way to the ground. That is a legitimate rebuttal, plain and simple. You are presenting circular arguments now exactly like a religious zealot.


Yet the physics are missing and publications in good journals are missing.


No, we can address the other assumptions Bazant made all year if you want to keep going in circles, but you have to also admit you are taking Bazant's accounting for structural redundancy (aka the safety factor) on total blind faith. You even admitted already you don't understand it, even immediately after claiming it must have been so basic that he didn't even need to show his work. You really can't see how ridiculous your argument is?


No, it is not blind faith. His work had gone through a peer review process. There are people much more qualified than both you and me who decided that the work was valid.


Let's just consider one of Bazant's erroneous applications of physics. The lower floors would have absorbed some energy for every floor-by-floor impact Bazant assumes. Yet he totally ignores this and in doing so creates a model that is significantly detached from reality and gives him more energy to work with than he otherwise would have.


I advice you to read his paper. He does not ignore this, he analyses this and concludes it can be neglected.


Same for assuming the free-fall drop


Also addressed.


and same for assuming 95% of the total mass was fully available when convenient for him.


Irrelevant as I explained to you many times. Even with 0% mass the collapse would not arrest.


That is how you differentiate between valid science and pseudoscience, because real science does not employ erroneous assumptions just to force a model to work.


So you decide it yourself. You create your own reality. Well that explains a lot doesn't it?


That cloud of irony must be hovering most densely around yourself, considering you just admitted yourself above that you have no idea where Bazant got his math from and just take it on blind faith.


The peer review process is not blind faith. Accepting whatever agrees with your presupposition often is.
edit on 16-6-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
I even think you will be ashamed when you read back what you are writing now.


We'll see.


So how exactly can Bazant be wrong about something he didn't even mention?


Look at it the other way. How can you be so damned sure that he's right when he doesn't even show his work?

Because... you have faith in him, because of his opinions, no different than a religious zealot.




Where?


Previous couple of pages, where I explained why you can not just take a design safety factor and apply it to the energy consumed. You more or less agreed to that, but you claimed that Ross took that in account, but you never backed that up. Do you have problem with your memory?


Oh, so you mean Ross not showing his work proves him wrong, but Bazant not showing his work proves him right?



I repeatedly point them out, only to have you blatantly ignore them. He assumes a pure free-fall drop that didn't exist, to start everything off, providing himself with an unrealistic amount of energy to work with. He outright ignores the energy/force absorption of the lower floors of the towers, thus providing himself with even more unrealistic amounts of energy. He assumes 95% of the mass utilized its full kinetic energy for the entire duration of either "collapse" just because his results would otherwise be way the hell off, despite the fact that there is no actual evidence for this, giving himself even more non-existent energy to work with.


I am of course specifically talking about this safety factor. Of course you like to switch the subject as soon as you don't know the answer. And once you don't know an answer to the subject you just switched to, you will switch again. After some time you will go to the first subject again, and the circle repeats itself.


Thanks for the gibberish non-answer. You asked what Bazant got wrong and I repeated it. Again. Yes, I suppose as long as you keep deflecting from your own questions we will have to keep going in circles.



And I understand why someone in denial would project their own faults onto someone else. 'Bazant is right because I agree with him' is not a "reasonable reason."


Where exactly did I ever say that? Hint: I didn't. Your delusional mind is making things up again. This is a very disingenuous use of quotes.


If you were more honest with yourself you would realize this is exactly what you are arguing. When it comes to the safety factor issue in particular you criticize Ross for the same thing you defend Bazant for. There is no way to defend that honestly and logically at the same time. It's a blatant double-standard and the only defense you have going for this position of yours is a web of rhetorical circular-reasoning that makes no sense.



I recall a very different situation that ended with you arguing with an academic paper from a major educational institution, that explicitly spoke of capacitive transients in AC circuits. Maybe I should post that again just to see you squirm again?


You recall it differently because you are delusional, or you have some other mental disorder. You have remembered what you wanted to remember.


I can't believe you had the balls to bring this up again from weeks/months ago, but are you really still arguing that you can't find transients for AC circuits again?


I gave a very good reason why I questioned Ross. He switched from load safety factor to energy consumed without even mentioning he made a conversion. It is almost like magic.


Multiply the loading (force) by the safety factor, and then multiplying that by meters to arrive at Joules, is not magic. It's basic physics. It's extremely ironic that when Bazant doesn't show what safety factor he assumes in the first place, you take him on blind faith and assume that it's "well understood" when you don't even understand it yourself. But when Ross does a basic calculation like what I just described, you refuse to comprehend it and pretend that it can't be done.


Yet the physics are missing and publications in good journals are missing.


The only physics neglected in Ross's paper is what he assumed the safety factor to be. Bazant did the exact same thing, but you defend him on that while criticizing Ross at the same time, for the same thing. And you still have no idea what the proper safety factor would be, because NIST did not actually publish that information and neither has any other source with access to the structural documentation. Everything else in Ross' paper is self-evident just by comparing it to Bazant's paper, and noticing the blaring omissions and distortions of physical facts in Bazant's paper, exactly as Ross points out, and exactly as I have repeatedly shown you. I've even showed you more problems with Bazant's paper than Ross did, because Ross doesn't mention how much mass Bazant assumed to have throughout the entirety of the collapses.


No, it is not blind faith. His work had gone through a peer review process. There are people much more qualified than both you and me who decided that the work was valid.


Peer review does not mean the paper is automatically correct or that it even has to make sense. It just means that two or more other scientists/scholars looked at the paper and could find no blaring errors to the best of their knowledge. From there any given paper is open to whatever criticism it may receive from the general public. Given that Bazant's paper was published within hours of 9/11, the fact that it was not thoroughly analyzed during the peer review process is not surprising. And yes, you do have blind faith in it because he did not even show his work!



Let's just consider one of Bazant's erroneous applications of physics. The lower floors would have absorbed some energy for every floor-by-floor impact Bazant assumes. Yet he totally ignores this and in doing so creates a model that is significantly detached from reality and gives him more energy to work with than he otherwise would have.


I advice you to read his paper. He does not ignore this, he analyses this and concludes it can be neglected.


He concludes "it can be neglected" because otherwise he would not have enough energy for his model to even give a collapse time consistent with reality, etc. It should be obvious that if he did the analysis anyway, and it really didn't matter, then he would just include that analysis as part of his final hypothesis. Instead he writes it off and gives himself more energy than would actually be available. He does the same thing when he assumes a total free-fall to start it all off, and he does the same thing forcing an assumption 95% of the total mass using its full kinetic energy when there is also absolutely no evidence of that.



Same for assuming the free-fall drop


Also addressed.


And addressed again above.




and same for assuming 95% of the total mass was fully available when convenient for him.


Irrelevant as I explained to you many times. Even with 0% mass the collapse would not arrest.


Of course not in his rigged model, but in reality it should be abundantly obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that with 0% of the mass available there would be no kinetic energy at all to propagate the collapse. You just proved again that his model is completely bogus.


But the reason he has to assume 95% of the total mass available to pile-drive the lower floors, one exclusively at a time (no absorption by lower structure at all), is because otherwise the collapse time he arrives at is still way off from observed reality.



That is how you differentiate between valid science and pseudoscience, because real science does not employ erroneous assumptions just to force a model to work.


So you decide it yourself. You create your own reality. Well that explains a lot doesn't it?


Actually I think it's well-accepted in the wider world that "science" that forces conclusions, using erroneous applications of physics, just to conform to preconceived beliefs, is pseudoscience. That's not just me. Now I see that you don't even know what science is.


The peer review process is not blind faith. Accepting whatever agrees with your presupposition often is.


And the peer review process is not some save-all excuse for you to keep pulling up like it automatically validates everything in Bazant's paper. That is not the point of a peer review. And if you agree that accepting whatever agrees with your presupposition is blind faith, then how in the hell do you reconcile that with being ignorant of Bazant's work and assuming that it "must" be right anyway?



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

So how exactly can Bazant be wrong about something he didn't even mention?


Look at it the other way. How can you be so damned sure that he's right when he doesn't even show his work?

Because... you have faith in him, because of his opinions, no different than a religious zealot.


Nope, because his work has gone through a peer review process and was published in a respected journal. How many time do I have to repeat this until you get the idea that I believe him on faith out of your head?


Oh, so you mean Ross not showing his work proves him wrong, but Bazant not showing his work proves him right?


Not only doesn't he show his work, he makes illogical leaps.


Thanks for the gibberish non-answer. You asked what Bazant got wrong and I repeated it. Again. Yes, I suppose as long as you keep deflecting from your own questions we will have to keep going in circles.


Lets agree on this then: you are not able to point out where Bazant forgot a safety factor.


If you were more honest with yourself you would realize this is exactly what you are arguing. When it comes to the safety factor issue in particular you criticize Ross for the same thing you defend Bazant for. There is no way to defend that honestly and logically at the same time. It's a blatant double-standard and the only defense you have going for this position of yours is a web of rhetorical circular-reasoning that makes no sense.


Nope it isn't a double standard. Bazants work has gone through a peer review process where top experts in the field reviews his work, while Ross his work didn't.


I can't believe you had the balls to bring this up again from weeks/months ago, but are you really still arguing that you can't find transients for AC circuits again?


No clue what you are talking about. But then again, I live in reality, you in lala land.


IMultiply the loading (force) by the safety factor, and then multiplying that by meters to arrive at Joules, is not magic. It's basic physics.


Didn't I explain to you that this is only valid when the force is constant, which is not the case in the WTC where the forces are dependent on all kind of factors? Didn't you even agree on that?


It's extremely ironic that when Bazant doesn't show what safety factor he assumes in the first place, you take him on blind faith and assume that it's "well understood" when you don't even understand it yourself. But when Ross does a basic calculation like what I just described, you refuse to comprehend it and pretend that it can't be done.


When you base your calculations on the dimensions of the actual real existing columns, you don't need to factor in any additional safety factor. To me it is very likely that this is what he did.


The only physics neglected in Ross's paper is what he assumed the safety factor to be. Bazant did the exact same thing, but you defend him on that while criticizing Ross at the same time, for the same thing.


No, not the same. Bazant: peer reviewed. Ross: baseless assertion on the internet.


And you still have no idea what the proper safety factor would be, because NIST did not actually publish that information and neither has any other source with access to the structural documentation. Everything else in Ross' paper is self-evident just by comparing it to Bazant's paper, and noticing the blaring omissions and distortions of physical facts in Bazant's paper, exactly as Ross points out, and exactly as I have repeatedly shown you. I've even showed you more problems with Bazant's paper than Ross did, because Ross doesn't mention how much mass Bazant assumed to have throughout the entirety of the collapses.


But we can throw the safery factor in the bin as that is a baseless assertion. The other points are baseless and not backed up with any physics too.


Peer review does not mean the paper is automatically correct or that it even has to make sense. It just means that two or more other scientists/scholars looked at the paper and could find no blaring errors to the best of their knowledge. From there any given paper is open to whatever criticism it may receive from the general public. Given that Bazant's paper was published within hours of 9/11, the fact that it was not thoroughly analyzed during the peer review process is not surprising. And yes, you do have blind faith in it because he did not even show his work!


And the normal procedure when a paper is incorrect (given anyone finds the paper important enough) is to write a paper that corrects it and get it published in a journal. What does it tell you that this hasn't happen in all these years, even though any thruther would have an orgasm if it did?


He concludes "it can be neglected" because otherwise he would not have enough energy for his model to even give a collapse time consistent with reality, etc.


Show the physics that prove this. I know you love baseless assertion, but I love evidence.


It should be obvious that if he did the analysis anyway, and it really didn't matter, then he would just include that analysis as part of his final hypothesis. Instead he writes it off and gives himself more energy than would actually be available. He does the same thing when he assumes a total free-fall to start it all off, and he does the same thing forcing an assumption 95% of the total mass using its full kinetic energy when there is also absolutely no evidence of that.


You can do a rough estimate and decide to include it or not.


Of course not in his rigged model, but in reality it should be abundantly obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that with 0% of the mass available there would be no kinetic energy at all to propagate the collapse. You just proved again that his model is completely bogus.


I am of course talking about accretion of mass, you should know this and I think you do, you are just playing dumb.


But the reason he has to assume 95% of the total mass available to pile-drive the lower floors, one exclusively at a time (no absorption by lower structure at all), is because otherwise the collapse time he arrives at is still way off from observed reality.


I don't care. His model isn't realistic anyhow, so I would not expect to get realistic collapse times from it.


Actually I think it's well-accepted in the wider world that "science" that forces conclusions, using erroneous applications of physics, just to conform to preconceived beliefs, is pseudoscience. That's not just me. Now I see that you don't even know what science is.


Last time I checked it is the peers who determine whether physics are applied correctly, not some unqualified anonymous person on the internet. But sure, feel free make up your own independent opinion about any subject you know next to nothing about. I guess living in a fantasy world can be entertaining.


And the peer review process is not some save-all excuse for you to keep pulling up like it automatically validates everything in Bazant's paper. That is not the point of a peer review. And if you agree that accepting whatever agrees with your presupposition is blind faith, then how in the hell do you reconcile that with being ignorant of Bazant's work and assuming that it "must" be right anyway?


Where did I say it must be right? I never said that, another disingenuous use of quotes. Oh, its your delusion again.

My position is: So far nobody has come with a valid rebuttal of the conclusion that collapse would not arrest, so I have no reason to believe it is incorrect. Since many years have passed already while during this period the subject has been very popular, the chances it will ever happen are extremely slim. And no, I don't accept Ross his baseless assumptions as a valid rebuttal. I require to see actual physics and even better have it published in a respected journal.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Nope, because his work has gone through a peer review process and was published in a respected journal. How many time do I have to repeat this until you get the idea that I believe him on faith out of your head?


Just because something has gone through peer review does not mean it is automatically correct, or that there are no errors in the paper. You don't understand the peer review process, do you? That is not a reason to ignore all the baseless assumptions and errors in his paper. So yes, you are taking his word on faith. Peer review does not automatically equate to a logical conclusion. Making assumptions obviously does not automatically equate to a logical conclusion (assuming safety factors and not showing his work, assuming 95% of maximum possible kinetic energy available for "pile-driving"). And only for you would outright misapplications of physics equate to something logical (assuming total free-fall to start, assuming the lower structure absorbed NO energy).



Oh, so you mean Ross not showing his work proves him wrong, but Bazant not showing his work proves him right?


Not only doesn't he show his work, he makes illogical leaps.


I'll ask that again. Ross not showing what safety factor he used is a problem, but Bazant not showing what safety factor he used is fine with you?



Thanks for the gibberish non-answer. You asked what Bazant got wrong and I repeated it. Again. Yes, I suppose as long as you keep deflecting from your own questions we will have to keep going in circles.


Lets agree on this then: you are not able to point out where Bazant forgot a safety factor.


Yes, I am, because I can point out where he doesn't mention it at all in his paper and doesn't show any of his work where he would have to take it into account. Again, for Ross this is unacceptable to the point of you ignoring his entire paper, but for Bazant it's perfectly okay for you and you automatically dismiss any other erroneous assumptions and misapplications of physics.



If you were more honest with yourself you would realize this is exactly what you are arguing. When it comes to the safety factor issue in particular you criticize Ross for the same thing you defend Bazant for. There is no way to defend that honestly and logically at the same time. It's a blatant double-standard and the only defense you have going for this position of yours is a web of rhetorical circular-reasoning that makes no sense.


Nope it isn't a double standard. Bazants work has gone through a peer review process where top experts in the field reviews his work, while Ross his work didn't.


Once again... This is not a catch-all excuse for the errors Bazant made. He did not show his work. Therefore he could NOT be properly peer reviewed in the first place. If you don't show your work then it goes without saying that no one could check it. His paper was published 2 days after 9/11, before any federal investigation whatsoever was underway and before any structural documentation could be released. And he didn't even show his work!



I can't believe you had the balls to bring this up again from weeks/months ago, but are you really still arguing that you can't find transients for AC circuits again?


No clue what you are talking about. But then again, I live in reality, you in lala land.


Right. I didn't think you actually wanted to talk about that again.




IMultiply the loading (force) by the safety factor, and then multiplying that by meters to arrive at Joules, is not magic. It's basic physics.


Didn't I explain to you that this is only valid when the force is constant, which is not the case in the WTC where the forces are dependent on all kind of factors? Didn't you even agree on that?


That doesn't mean you can't do the conversions. You just have to use calculus instead of algebra.




It's extremely ironic that when Bazant doesn't show what safety factor he assumes in the first place, you take him on blind faith and assume that it's "well understood" when you don't even understand it yourself. But when Ross does a basic calculation like what I just described, you refuse to comprehend it and pretend that it can't be done.


When you base your calculations on the dimensions of the actual real existing columns, you don't need to factor in any additional safety factor. To me it is very likely that this is what he did.


To you it's "very likely" based on nothing but your faith again, because he still did not show his work.



The only physics neglected in Ross's paper is what he assumed the safety factor to be. Bazant did the exact same thing, but you defend him on that while criticizing Ross at the same time, for the same thing.


No, not the same. Bazant: peer reviewed. Ross: baseless assertion on the internet.


The only baseless assertion you can point at, at all, is Ross's estimation of the safety factor, for which Bazant also did not show his work. Again you exhibit faith and an extreme bias and double-standard. Everything else that Ross points out can be immediately verified just by looking at Bazant's paper and seeing that, yes, he made these assumptions, and yes, mathematically, they give Bazant more energy to play with than would have been realistically available, and he also assumes physical behaviors that are impossible (like the lack of absorption, free-fall start, etc.).


But we can throw the safery factor in the bin as that is a baseless assertion.


Then we can do the same for Bazant's paper since he did not show his work and you have to take him on blind faith, and take whoever reviewed his paper 2 days after 9/11 on blind faith. How can you even peer review a paper when the work isn't shown? Do you know what peer review is?


The other points are baseless and not backed up with any physics too.


Wrong again, and you can keep repeating this and you will continually be corrected. All the assumptions I keep mentioning in Bazant's paper, that Ross points out, are immediately verifiable, by taking your eyeballs, and using them to read Bazant's paper, and using your brain, to see that yes, he did in fact make those assumptions which are unrealistic. The physics is in Bazant's paper, and it is wrong, and that is the entire point.


And the normal procedure when a paper is incorrect (given anyone finds the paper important enough) is to write a paper that corrects it and get it published in a journal. What does it tell you that this hasn't happen in all these years, even though any thruther would have an orgasm if it did?


It doesn't "say" anything that is actually a logical argument. The peer review process is not a crutch for you to fall back on and start asking a bunch of rhetorical questions when you know this guy is talking out of his ass in this paper. The information is freely available to anyone who is interested in actually looking at it nonetheless.



He concludes "it can be neglected" because otherwise he would not have enough energy for his model to even give a collapse time consistent with reality, etc.


Show the physics that prove this. I know you love baseless assertion, but I love evidence.


He admits this in his own damned papers if you actually read them. What a surprise that you haven't even really read this guy's work, but then again you don't need to when you have to take everything he says on faith anyway since he didn't show his work.



It should be obvious that if he did the analysis anyway, and it really didn't matter, then he would just include that analysis as part of his final hypothesis. Instead he writes it off and gives himself more energy than would actually be available. He does the same thing when he assumes a total free-fall to start it all off, and he does the same thing forcing an assumption 95% of the total mass using its full kinetic energy when there is also absolutely no evidence of that.


You can do a rough estimate and decide to include it or not.


This is completely ass-backwards from the scientific method. You don't just pull numbers out of your ass until you find the ones that make your model work. The point is to try to represent all variables to match reality as closely as possible. Picking and choosing what laws of physics to apply and which to ignore, to force a model to work, is exactly what Bazant did.



Of course not in his rigged model, but in reality it should be abundantly obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that with 0% of the mass available there would be no kinetic energy at all to propagate the collapse. You just proved again that his model is completely bogus.


I am of course talking about accretion of mass, you should know this and I think you do, you are just playing dumb.


It's still physically impossible. He starts of with a free-fall drop, which didn't happen, but gives him a "running start" of kinetic energy that would not have actually been available. Then he assumes no energy is absorbed below on top of that, and all the energy magically destroys the floors one at a time and no energy is lost to anything else, which is also physically impossible. Then he ignores the disintegration of the structure, which would be progressively happening with each destroyed floor, sending more and more debris out over the sides in every direction and turning all the concrete slabs into powder. And critical calculations for his model, he just leaves out completely and leaves you guessing as to what he was even calculating. Bazant's model is not proof of the least thing in regards to the WTC. It's a joke that you have to take too seriously because you have precious little else to clutch to for the "official story" at all.



But the reason he has to assume 95% of the total mass available to pile-drive the lower floors, one exclusively at a time (no absorption by lower structure at all), is because otherwise the collapse time he arrives at is still way off from observed reality.


I don't care. His model isn't realistic anyhow, so I would not expect to get realistic collapse times from it.


Good God. If you already know that his model isn't realistic then what the hell do you think it proves? Oh wait, you think it proves that the collapse would progress no matter what, because he assumes all kinds of things to make this happen and doesn't even show his damned work. But it was peer reviewed so obviously it can't be the least bit inaccurate. Except you simultaneously admit that it's not realistic? What in the hell?




Actually I think it's well-accepted in the wider world that "science" that forces conclusions, using erroneous applications of physics, just to conform to preconceived beliefs, is pseudoscience. That's not just me. Now I see that you don't even know what science is.


Last time I checked it is the peers who determine whether physics are applied correctly, not some unqualified anonymous person on the internet. But sure, feel free make up your own independent opinion about any subject you know next to nothing about. I guess living in a fantasy world can be entertaining.


The same could be said of you. I at least linked you to a paper by a professional mechanical engineer from the UK. You could find other criticisms too if you bothered to look, or use your own brain, but apparently all you can do is take things on faith from people that already agree with you or anonymous peer review papers about the WTC collapses only 2 days after they came down, and take them as gospel.




And the peer review process is not some save-all excuse for you to keep pulling up like it automatically validates everything in Bazant's paper. That is not the point of a peer review. And if you agree that accepting whatever agrees with your presupposition is blind faith, then how in the hell do you reconcile that with being ignorant of Bazant's work and assuming that it "must" be right anyway?


Where did I say it must be right? I never said that, another disingenuous use of quotes. Oh, its your delusion again.


Look. I point out all these erroneous assumptions in Bazant's paper, and what is your excuse that you keep deferring back to? "It was peer reviewed, it was peer reviewed." Well if you already know that peer review doesn't automatically equate to being right, then you should already realize how weak your own excuses are. And once again, it shows that for you it all comes down to blind faith in what you WANT to believe.


My position is: So far nobody has come with a valid rebuttal of the conclusion that collapse would not arrest


No one has shown that it would NOT arrest in the first place! There is no use trying to prove a negative when you can't even prove the positive claim. Making erroneous assumptions and not showing your work does not constitute proof, either, and you know it. Neither does being peer reviewed, and you know that too. So give it up.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
The most important sentence in this exchange between -PLB- and bsbray11 is quoted below.


Originally posted by -PLB-
I don't care. His model isn't realistic anyhow, so I would not expect to get realistic collapse times from it.


-PLB- is trying to defend Bazant's paper, yet at the same time he admits that Bazant's model isn't realistic.

It makes you wonder why some people even bother.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Just because something has gone through peer review does not mean it is automatically correct, or that there are no errors in the paper. You don't understand the peer review process, do you? That is not a reason to ignore all the baseless assumptions and errors in his paper. So yes, you are taking his word on faith. Peer review does not automatically equate to a logical conclusion. Making assumptions obviously does not automatically equate to a logical conclusion (assuming safety factors and not showing his work, assuming 95% of maximum possible kinetic energy available for "pile-driving"). And only for you would outright misapplications of physics equate to something logical (assuming total free-fall to start, assuming the lower structure absorbed NO energy).


Peer review does equate to logical conclusions. That is what the peer review process if for, to see if the work makes sense.



I'll ask that again. Ross not showing what safety factor he used is a problem, but Bazant not showing what safety factor he used is fine with you?


Oh so now you think even Ross didn't show a safety factor. He did. The problem is that he applies a safety factor for loads directly to energy consumption. I might have mentioned this somewhere already though.


Yes, I am, because I can point out where he doesn't mention it at all in his paper and doesn't show any of his work where he would have to take it into account. Again, for Ross this is unacceptable to the point of you ignoring his entire paper, but for Bazant it's perfectly okay for you and you automatically dismiss any other erroneous assumptions and misapplications of physics.


I don't really care what Ross thinks is ok. If he thinks Bazants work is wrong then he should demonstrate that, not assert that.


Once again... This is not a catch-all excuse for the errors Bazant made. He did not show his work. Therefore he could NOT be properly peer reviewed in the first place. If you don't show your work then it goes without saying that no one could check it. His paper was published 2 days after 9/11, before any federal investigation whatsoever was underway and before any structural documentation could be released. And he didn't even show his work!


His work was later published in an actual real journal.


Right. I didn't think you actually wanted to talk about that again.


Yes I didn't want to talk about it, thats why I brought it up. Thruther logic....


That doesn't mean you can't do the conversions. You just have to use calculus instead of algebra.


Basically, it means you can not convert it. It becomes a non sensual "factor". If you can find me any literature where such a thing is done you will get a star.


To you it's "very likely" based on nothing but your faith again, because he still did not show his work.


Again, believing someone when he has years of experience and many publications and awards on his name and put his work through a peer review process, it is not called faith. Faith is when you believe someone without a good reason, for example you believing Ross' work.


The only baseless assertion you can point at, at all, is Ross's estimation of the safety factor, for which Bazant also did not show his work. Again you exhibit faith and an extreme bias and double-standard. Everything else that Ross points out can be immediately verified just by looking at Bazant's paper and seeing that, yes, he made these assumptions, and yes, mathematically, they give Bazant more energy to play with than would have been realistically available, and he also assumes physical behaviors that are impossible (like the lack of absorption, free-fall start, etc.).


Next baseless assertion: Energy consumption in the lower part of the columns was significant. Where are the physics?


Then we can do the same for Bazant's paper since he did not show his work and you have to take him on blind faith, and take whoever reviewed his paper 2 days after 9/11 on blind faith. How can you even peer review a paper when the work isn't shown? Do you know what peer review is?


Again, believing someone when he has years of experience and many publications and awards on his name and put his work through a peer review process, it is not called faith. Faith is when you believe someone without a good reason, for example you believing Ross' work.


Wrong again, and you can keep repeating this and you will continually be corrected. All the assumptions I keep mentioning in Bazant's paper, that Ross points out, are immediately verifiable, by taking your eyeballs, and using them to read Bazant's paper, and using your brain, to see that yes, he did in fact make those assumptions which are unrealistic. The physics is in Bazant's paper, and it is wrong, and that is the entire point.


Can you post the calculations? I could not find them.


It doesn't "say" anything that is actually a logical argument. The peer review process is not a crutch for you to fall back on and start asking a bunch of rhetorical questions when you know this guy is talking out of his ass in this paper. The information is freely available to anyone who is interested in actually looking at it nonetheless.


No, it is used by real scientists that use actual science, unlike for example Ross with his baseless assertions.


He admits this in his own damned papers if you actually read them. What a surprise that you haven't even really read this guy's work, but then again you don't need to when you have to take everything he says on faith anyway since he didn't show his work.


Oh really? Can you quote this? And I mean the part where he says "because otherwise he would not have enough energy for his model to even give a collapse time consistent with reality". Or was that coming from your delusional mind?

He nowhere said such a thing. That is your, and Ross assertion. Prove it.


This is completely ass-backwards from the scientific method. You don't just pull numbers out of your ass until you find the ones that make your model work. The point is to try to represent all variables to match reality as closely as possible. Picking and choosing what laws of physics to apply and which to ignore, to force a model to work, is exactly what Bazant did.


No it is not. As engineer I have to deal with this all the time. You can't possibly include all factors in your model, you need to make choices what is relevant and what is not. In some cases mistakes are made.

You claim that in this case a mistake was made. Prove it.


It's still physically impossible. He starts of with a free-fall drop, which didn't happen, but gives him a "running start" of kinetic energy that would not have actually been available. Then he assumes no energy is absorbed below on top of that, and all the energy magically destroys the floors one at a time and no energy is lost to anything else, which is also physically impossible. Then he ignores the disintegration of the structure, which would be progressively happening with each destroyed floor, sending more and more debris out over the sides in every direction and turning all the concrete slabs into powder. And critical calculations for his model, he just leaves out completely and leaves you guessing as to what he was even calculating. Bazant's model is not proof of the least thing in regards to the WTC. It's a joke that you have to take too seriously because you have precious little else to clutch to for the "official story" at all.


Prove that this is significant to his conclusions. Show the physics.


Good God. If you already know that his model isn't realistic then what the hell do you think it proves? Oh wait, you think it proves that the collapse would progress no matter what, because he assumes all kinds of things to make this happen and doesn't even show his damned work. But it was peer reviewed so obviously it can't be the least bit inaccurate. Except you simultaneously admit that it's not realistic? What in the hell?


It proved, that even in a completely unrealistic situation in favor of arrest, the building would still collapse. I have explained that to you, and it is also explained in his paper.


The same could be said of you. I at least linked you to a paper by a professional mechanical engineer from the UK. You could find other criticisms too if you bothered to look, or use your own brain, but apparently all you can do is take things on faith from people that already agree with you or anonymous peer review papers about the WTC collapses only 2 days after they came down, and take them as gospel.


Nope, I don't base my position concerning scientific work on my own opinion. I accept the consensus, as I acknowledge I am not educated enough in all field to make a sensible judgment.


Look. I point out all these erroneous assumptions in Bazant's paper, and what is your excuse that you keep deferring back to? "It was peer reviewed, it was peer reviewed." Well if you already know that peer review doesn't automatically equate to being right, then you should already realize how weak your own excuses are. And once again, it shows that for you it all comes down to blind faith in what you WANT to believe.


There are two reasons I am dismissing your critique. 1) there is completely no physics that prove that the claimed effects are relevant at all. 2) the work is not published in any serious journal.

I already told you that when 1) is met I am already a lot more satisfied. But there isn't any physics that disproves Bazant, just baseless assertions.


No one has shown that it would NOT arrest in the first place! There is no use trying to prove a negative when you can't even prove the positive claim. Making erroneous assumptions and not showing your work does not constitute proof, either, and you know it. Neither does being peer reviewed, and you know that too. So give it up.


You are not making sense. Instead of this continuous whining, why don't you show why the energy calculated by Bazant is wrong using actual physics?



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I appreciate that you took the time and effort to stop by for a cheerleading session, but there is really no substance to this rant of yours at all. You talk about "science" but you have nothing relevant to say about the topic at hand, of course.


You're very welcome. Substance? There is more substance in my short "rant" than the thousands of irrelivant posts you have made. Science? I have shown members of ATS MANY Peer reviewed articles that deal with the buildings on 9/11. There has not been a single person that have scientifically proven them in error. If so, please post the link to where is has been properly reviewed and published.



It's not that there haven't been peer reviewed papers.


But, it is.


It's that whenever it does happen,


it's hasn't


you religious folk begin making slanderous attacks.


It's only slander if the accusations are false.


Dr. Steven Jones had his first paper peer reviewed 3 separate times last I remember, because each time it was peer reviewed (which is a very simple process and was never meant to be any final judgment of validity in the first place) this is exactly the slander tactic you JREF'er ilk resorted to.


Steven Jones? Really? Are you talking about the Na-Nu Na-Nu Pixe Dust he found from the WTC? The one he paid to have published in a disgraced on-line journal? The one where he had members of his own truther group review it?

Where are the peer reviewed papers that critize the NIST?

When will you submit your paper to refute Bazant, Le, Greening & Benson paper? Mr. Anders Björkman did...got his letter published, then was made to look like the fool that he is. Why don't you give it a shot?

Have you read and refuted these? When will you submit your work to the Engineering community?


Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation. Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C., JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12

Dissecting the Collapses Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46

A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers. By: Quintiere, J.G.; di Marzo, M.; Becker, R.. Fire Safety Journal, Oct2002, Vol. 37 Issue 7, p707, 10p.

S. W. Banovic, T. Foecke, W.E. Luecke, et al. “The role of metallurgy in the NIST investigation of the World Trade Center towers collapse”, JOM, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 22-29, November 2007.

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center. By: Karim, Mohammed R.; Fatt, Michelle S. Hoo. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Oct2005, Vol. 131 Issue 10, p1066-1072.

"Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers" Clifton, Charles G., HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

Could the world trade center have been modified to prevent its collapse?; Newland, D. E.; Cebon, D. Journal of Engineering Mechanics; 2002 Vol. 128 Issue 7, p795-800, 6p.

How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center; Wierzbicki, T.; Teng, X. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 2003 Vol. 28, p601-625, 25p

Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires. By: Usmani, A. S.. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Jun2005, Vol. 131 Issue 6, p654-657.

Structural Responses of World Trade Center under Aircraft Attacks. Omika, Yukihiro.; Fukuzawa, Eiji.; Koshika, Norihide. Journal of Structural Engineering v. 131 no1 (January 2005) p. 6-15

The Structural Steel of the World Trade Center Towers. Gayle, Frank W.; Banovic, Stephen W.; Foecke, Tim. Advanced Materials & Processes v. 162 no10 (October 2004) p. 37-9

WTC Findings Uphold Structural Design. Post, Nadine M. ENR v. 253 no17 (November 1 2004) p. 10-11

"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations" Monahan, B., Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Ming Wang, Peter Chang, James Quintiere, and Andre Marshall "Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1" Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities Volume 21, Issue 6, pp. 414-421

Effect of insulation on the fire behaviour of steel floor trusses. Fire and Materials, 29:4, July/August 2005. pp. 181 - 194. Chang, Jeremy; Buchanan, Andrew H.; Moss, Peter J.

Corbett, G.P. "Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

G. Flint, A.S. Usmani, S. Lamont, J. Torero and B. Lane, Effect of fire on composite long span truss floor systems, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (4) (2006), pp. 303–315.



You and PLB go back and forth like a ping pong match and get no where! Time to step up Bsbray and do what is right.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Peer review does equate to logical conclusions.


So now you are saying every peer-reviewed paper is automatically completely factual? Maybe you just don't know what the word "equate" means, either.



I'll ask that again. Ross not showing what safety factor he used is a problem, but Bazant not showing what safety factor he used is fine with you?


Oh so now you think even Ross didn't show a safety factor. He did. The problem is that he applies a safety factor for loads directly to energy consumption. I might have mentioned this somewhere already though.


Actually you already admitted the opposite if you go back and read your posts, because we have already covered the fact that he didn't just use the same number and slap a different unit on the end.



Yes, I am, because I can point out where he doesn't mention it at all in his paper and doesn't show any of his work where he would have to take it into account. Again, for Ross this is unacceptable to the point of you ignoring his entire paper, but for Bazant it's perfectly okay for you and you automatically dismiss any other erroneous assumptions and misapplications of physics.


I don't really care what Ross thinks is ok. If he thinks Bazants work is wrong then he should demonstrate that, not assert that.


And if Bazant thinks his model has any merit, he should actually show the work, instead of forcing gullible people like you to take it on faith. Not like he would really have to force you, because you willingly take it on faith anyway.


His work was later published in an actual real journal.


Which means that it's automatically 100% factual to you? Then you would be wrong. And he still does not show his work, and he still makes all the erroneous assumptions I have to keep bringing up to you.



Right. I didn't think you actually wanted to talk about that again.


Yes I didn't want to talk about it, thats why I brought it up. Thruther logic....


You brought it up, then you immediately shut up about it because you know that transients can be found for AC circuits. Or at least you do now. That's your "logic," and it's spelled "truther" by the way, not "thruther."




That doesn't mean you can't do the conversions. You just have to use calculus instead of algebra.


Basically, it means you can not convert it. It becomes a non sensual "factor". If you can find me any literature where such a thing is done you will get a star.


Anything that can be done algebraically, can be done with calculus. Calculus is actually the more powerful system. So you are just making things up again. And stars from you would be an insult anyway.



To you it's "very likely" based on nothing but your faith again, because he still did not show his work.


Again, believing someone when he has years of experience


That's an argument from authority. A fallacy. Again, you have faith, not actual science or logic. Ross also has years of experience as a professional engineer, but of course you don't mention that.


Next baseless assertion: Energy consumption in the lower part of the columns was significant. Where are the physics?


Regardless of whether you or Bazant feel it was "significant" or not, Bazant neglected that energy consumption from his paper, thus both making his model that much more unrealistic, and allowing himself that much more energy that would not have actually been available. He provided himself with more energy than would be realistic using multiple means and this is just one of them.



Then we can do the same for Bazant's paper since he did not show his work and you have to take him on blind faith, and take whoever reviewed his paper 2 days after 9/11 on blind faith. How can you even peer review a paper when the work isn't shown? Do you know what peer review is?


Again, believing someone when he has years of experience and many publications and awards on his name
and put his work through a peer review process, it is not called faith.


Actually yes, it is. I'm not surprised that you don't know the difference. Here you are just arguing from authority again. Are you intentionally dumbing yourself down to believe this trash or have you just never known the difference between real logic and a fallacy?



Wrong again, and you can keep repeating this and you will continually be corrected. All the assumptions I keep mentioning in Bazant's paper, that Ross points out, are immediately verifiable, by taking your eyeballs, and using them to read Bazant's paper, and using your brain, to see that yes, he did in fact make those assumptions which are unrealistic. The physics is in Bazant's paper, and it is wrong, and that is the entire point.


Can you post the calculations? I could not find them.


That's exactly the point. Bazant neglected the physics that would make his model relevant, and he did not show his work.

By not being able to find Bazant's calculations, you are only proving my point, and Ross's point.



It doesn't "say" anything that is actually a logical argument. The peer review process is not a crutch for you to fall back on and start asking a bunch of rhetorical questions when you know this guy is talking out of his ass in this paper. The information is freely available to anyone who is interested in actually looking at it nonetheless.


No, it is used by real scientists that use actual science, unlike for example Ross with his baseless assertions.


Real science is not a popularity contest or an argument from authority. You don't even know the difference.



He admits this in his own damned papers if you actually read them. What a surprise that you haven't even really read this guy's work, but then again you don't need to when you have to take everything he says on faith anyway since he didn't show his work.


Oh really? Can you quote this? And I mean the part where he says "because otherwise he would not have enough energy for his model to even give a collapse time consistent with reality". Or was that coming from your delusional mind?


I've posted it for you multiple times in the past and you apparently keep "forgetting" it. Read his paper yourself for a change. This is exactly why he assumes 95% of the mass was available to use its full kinetic energy for the entirety of a "collapse." Otherwise, yes, it works out to take much more time than the "collapses" actually did, and Bazant readily admits this himself and actually uses it as an excuse to justify using such a ridiculous amount of the total mass. If you don't even understand this about Bazant's model then I'm not going to waste even more time accommodating your constantly-rising ignorance level in this "discussion" because it's become plainly obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about, and never did.



This is completely ass-backwards from the scientific method. You don't just pull numbers out of your ass until you find the ones that make your model work. The point is to try to represent all variables to match reality as closely as possible. Picking and choosing what laws of physics to apply and which to ignore, to force a model to work, is exactly what Bazant did.


No it is not. As engineer I have to deal with this all the time. You can't possibly include all factors in your model, you need to make choices what is relevant and what is not. In some cases mistakes are made.


You are not an engineer. If you are, you must have lucked out at the expense of humanity because between me and ANOK, we have already shown you are not able to do free-body diagrams, vector math, or anything else basic to every single engineering practice.



It's still physically impossible. He starts of with a free-fall drop, which didn't happen, but gives him a "running start" of kinetic energy that would not have actually been available. Then he assumes no energy is absorbed below on top of that, and all the energy magically destroys the floors one at a time and no energy is lost to anything else, which is also physically impossible. Then he ignores the disintegration of the structure, which would be progressively happening with each destroyed floor, sending more and more debris out over the sides in every direction and turning all the concrete slabs into powder. And critical calculations for his model, he just leaves out completely and leaves you guessing as to what he was even calculating. Bazant's model is not proof of the least thing in regards to the WTC. It's a joke that you have to take too seriously because you have precious little else to clutch to for the "official story" at all.


Prove that this is significant to his conclusions. Show the physics.


You already admitted that his model is unrealistic. What more needs to be said, really? You take unrealistic ideas and pretend that they prove things, which is a full delusion.



Good God. If you already know that his model isn't realistic then what the hell do you think it proves? Oh wait, you think it proves that the collapse would progress no matter what, because he assumes all kinds of things to make this happen and doesn't even show his damned work. But it was peer reviewed so obviously it can't be the least bit inaccurate. Except you simultaneously admit that it's not realistic? What in the hell?


It proved, that even in a completely unrealistic situation in favor of arrest


Now you are lying again. I have been showing you all the things he assumed in favor of forcing the "collapses" to CONTINUE and yet you still claim the opposite is the case, out of blind faith. Tell me how assuming a free-fall drop, when it didn't happen, is in any way in favor of arresting the collapse. Or assuming 95% of the mass was available, or assuming that no energy was absorbed by the lower floors, etc. etc. You are really talking out of your ass man, and no one who actually understands these concepts needs to waste time going over the basics with you just to show that, no, they are NOT made in favor of arresting a "collapse."



The same could be said of you. I at least linked you to a paper by a professional mechanical engineer from the UK. You could find other criticisms too if you bothered to look, or use your own brain, but apparently all you can do is take things on faith from people that already agree with you or anonymous peer review papers about the WTC collapses only 2 days after they came down, and take them as gospel.


Nope, I don't base my position concerning scientific work on my own opinion. I accept the consensus, as I acknowledge I am not educated enough in all field to make a sensible judgment.


Fine, then you just believe what you think everyone else believes and follow the herd. That also has nothing to do with real science, but I waste my time even telling you this.



Look. I point out all these erroneous assumptions in Bazant's paper, and what is your excuse that you keep deferring back to? "It was peer reviewed, it was peer reviewed." Well if you already know that peer review doesn't automatically equate to being right, then you should already realize how weak your own excuses are. And once again, it shows that for you it all comes down to blind faith in what you WANT to believe.


There are two reasons I am dismissing your critique. 1) there is completely no physics that prove that the claimed effects are relevant at all. 2) the work is not published in any serious journal.


And both of those are stubbornly ignorant of everything I have been telling you through these posts.


I already told you that when 1) is met I am already a lot more satisfied. But there isn't any physics that disproves Bazant, just baseless assertions.


Bazant never proved his own work in the first place, or even showed his work.



No one has shown that it would NOT arrest in the first place! There is no use trying to prove a negative when you can't even prove the positive claim. Making erroneous assumptions and not showing your work does not constitute proof, either, and you know it. Neither does being peer reviewed, and you know that too. So give it up.


You are not making sense. Instead of this continuous whining, why don't you show why the energy calculated by Bazant is wrong using actual physics?


When Bazant did not use actual physics in the first place, proving him wrong is not even required.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
You're very welcome. Substance? There is more substance in my short "rant" than the thousands of irrelivant posts you have made.


Going for another rant I see?

I can post a big list of papers too and the names of many more engineers and other scientists that disagree with you, so you're just pissing into the wind.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
The most important sentence in this exchange between -PLB- and bsbray11 is quoted below.


Originally posted by -PLB-
I don't care. His model isn't realistic anyhow, so I would not expect to get realistic collapse times from it.


-PLB- is trying to defend Bazant's paper, yet at the same time he admits that Bazant's model isn't realistic.



Thank you tezz. He admits Bazant's model is unrealistic, we know that Bazant didn't even show his work, and his arguments for Bazant all boil down to "his paper was published" and "he has years of experience." These huge posts above have served well for exposing this exact kind of fallacious reasoning that all trusters of the official story have to accept on an ignorant blind faith.

PLB is obviously not actually interested in any logical defense of his claims at all. And I mean "logic" in the formal sense of the word, not in the way he's twisting it to include the blatant fallacies mentioned above. He's just trolling for an argument, and picked a disgusting subject for it.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


If you had read the paper you would have known this is clearly mentioned and explained in the paper itself. I don't understand why people want the model in the paper to explain the actual collapse. The model isn't meant for that, it is meant to prove that the collapse would not arrest even under unrealistic assumption in favor of arrest.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Going for another rant I see?

I can post a big list of papers too and the names of many more engineers and other scientists that disagree with you, so you're just pissing into the wind.


The partial list I posted above are papers that have been accepted into the professional scientific community. The list is not only names. If you do have some papers accepted from Truthers regarding 9/11, please list the authors name, journal name, issue date, and page numbers. Sorry, but I have had a hard time finding truther papers in the real world. Thank you for your anticiapated cooperation.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
it is meant to prove that the collapse would not arrest even under unrealistic assumption in favor of arrest.


And yet Bazant makes multiple unrealistic assumptions in favor of forcing the "collapse" to continue instead of actually arresting. But you intentionally ignore this, and the fact that Bazant didn't even show his work in the first place.



Originally posted by Six Sigma
Sorry, but I have had a hard time finding truther papers in the real world.


That's because you hardly live in it. For you, apparently, something has to be a widely-accepted belief before it has any credibility. That's an "interesting" mentality (especially for a conspiracy theory website) but it is also not rationally justified in any way.

Here are plenty of papers if you are man enough to consider them for yourself, instead of having to have everything filtered through the scientific equivalent of bureaucracy before allowing yourself to even think, apparently:

www.journalof911studies.com...
edit on 17-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
So now you are saying every peer-reviewed paper is automatically completely factual? Maybe you just don't know what the word "equate" means, either.


You seem be confused about the meaning factual and logical. You can create a perfectly logical conclusions based on incorrect facts.


Actually you already admitted the opposite if you go back and read your posts, because we have already covered the fact that he didn't just use the same number and slap a different unit on the end.


You are a bit confused. He used a factor meant for load on energy consumed. You claimed he made a conversion but was unable to make this even slightly plausible.


And if Bazant thinks his model has any merit, he should actually show the work, instead of forcing gullible people like you to take it on faith. Not like he would really have to force you, because you willingly take it on faith anyway.


Again, believing someone when he has years of experience and many publications and awards on his name and put his work through a peer review process, it is not called faith. Faith is when you believe someone without a good reason, for example you believing Ross' work.


Which means that it's automatically 100% factual to you? Then you would be wrong. And he still does not show his work, and he still makes all the erroneous assumptions I have to keep bringing up to you.


What did I wrote in a previous post? It seems I can just copy past it, it doesn't really stay with you does it? Here it is again:

So far nobody has come with a valid rebuttal of the conclusion that collapse would not arrest, so I have no reason to believe it is incorrect.

I nowhere said it is automatically 100% factual, you are just a bit confused to think that.


You brought it up, then you immediately shut up about it because you know that transients can be found for AC circuits. Or at least you do now. That's your "logic," and it's spelled "truther" by the way, not "thruther."


Your delusion is going wild again. Please the post where I claimed you can not take a transient from an AC circuit. Did you know that I made hundreds if not thousands of these kind of simulations? Oh well, don't even bother, we all know it is just in your delusional mind.


Anything that can be done algebraically, can be done with calculus. Calculus is actually the more powerful system. So you are just making things up again. And stars from you would be an insult anyway.


Read it again, I say you end up with a factor that doesn't make any sense. The "Energy consumption factor" ? Just complete nonsense. Ross used a safety factor directly on energy consumed. That is incorrect.


That's an argument from authority. A fallacy. Again, you have faith, not actual science or logic. Ross also has years of experience as a professional engineer, but of course you don't mention that.


No that is not a fallacy. It is a fallacy when I claim the authority can not be wrong. That is something completely different than saying you believe someone because he demonstrated he knows a lot about the subject. I don't think you really can compare the accomplishments of Ross to that of Bazant.


Regardless of whether you or Bazant feel it was "significant" or not, Bazant neglected that energy consumption from his paper, thus both making his model that much more unrealistic, and allowing himself that much more energy that would not have actually been available. He provided himself with more energy than would be realistic using multiple means and this is just one of them.


So you don't really care if this value is significant or not. Did he mention the toothbrush someone forgot to take home on floor 43? Ha, he forgot that energy sink didn't he?

Show it is relevant in any way, or it has absolutely no meaning.


Actually yes, it is. I'm not surprised that you don't know the difference. Here you are just arguing from authority again. Are you intentionally dumbing yourself down to believe this trash or have you just never known the difference between real logic and a fallacy?


No it is not faith, that is how rational people determine when to accept a claim or not. On the other hand, you determine it all on yourself, without the proper expertise. That actually is called faith, as in believing something without any good reason.


That's exactly the point. Bazant neglected the physics that would make his model relevant, and he did not show his work.


But he did pass the review process. And nobody has yet invalidated it.


By not being able to find Bazant's calculations, you are only proving my point, and Ross's point.


No, Ross his point was that he forgot a safety factor, which he could not know.


Real science is not a popularity contest or an argument from authority. You don't even know the difference.


Correct, it depends on peer reviewing, something Ross neglected.


I've posted it for you multiple times in the past and you apparently keep "forgetting" it. Read his paper yourself for a change. This is exactly why he assumes 95% of the mass was available to use its full kinetic energy for the entirety of a "collapse." Otherwise, yes, it works out to take much more time than the "collapses" actually did, and Bazant readily admits this himself and actually uses it as an excuse to justify using such a ridiculous amount of the total mass. If you don't even understand this about Bazant's model then I'm not going to waste even more time accommodating your constantly-rising ignorance level in this "discussion" because it's become plainly obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about, and never did.


And once again you switch subjects. We were talking about energy consumption in the lower part of the columns.


You are not an engineer. If you are, you must have lucked out at the expense of humanity because between me and ANOK, we have already shown you are not able to do free-body diagrams, vector math, or anything else basic to every single engineering practice.


You used the same type of logic you use on the 911 issue to determine that. Just because I do not draw you a picture on request doesn't mean I can't. That is logic fail. On the other hand, the picture you drew looked more like a picture from kindergarten. Even after explaining in depth why it was wrong, you still didn't get it.


You already admitted that his model is unrealistic. What more needs to be said, really? You take unrealistic ideas and pretend that they prove things, which is a full delusion.


You need to prove that the unrealistically high energy consumption that Bazant used for crushing a floor should even be a factor 8 or so higher.


Now you are lying again. I have been showing you all the things he assumed in favor of forcing the "collapses" to CONTINUE and yet you still claim the opposite is the case, out of blind faith. Tell me how assuming a free-fall drop, when it didn't happen, is in any way in favor of arresting the collapse. Or assuming 95% of the mass was available, or assuming that no energy was absorbed by the lower floors, etc. etc. You are really talking out of your ass man, and no one who actually understands these concepts needs to waste time going over the basics with you just to show that, no, they are NOT made in favor of arresting a "collapse."


Yet you continually are incapable of showing that these things have any significance. You completely fail at actually disproving Bazants work.


Fine, then you just believe what you think everyone else believes and follow the herd. That also has nothing to do with real science, but I waste my time even telling you this.


Correct, and indeed, that is not real science. Guess what, I am not a scientist. Has your delusion gone that far that you actually think you are a scientist and are capable of forming your own educated opinion about any scientific work?


And both of those are stubbornly ignorant of everything I have been telling you through these posts.


I am not really interested in your stories. Show the physics.


Bazant never proved his own work in the first place, or even showed his work.


But he did get published in a journal and he was never disproved by anyone.


When Bazant did not use actual physics in the first place, proving him wrong is not even required.


Where did you get the idea that he didn't use actual physics? But at least you slowly seem to acknowledge that Ross' work does not disprove Bazant.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
And yet Bazant makes multiple unrealistic assumptions in favor of forcing the "collapse" to continue instead of actually arresting. But you intentionally ignore this, and the fact that Bazant didn't even show his work in the first place.


And yet you are unable to demonstrate that these assumptions invalidates his conclusions.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
You seem be confused about the meaning factual and logical. You can create a perfectly logical conclusions based on incorrect facts.


LOL, hilarious.

Logic is correct reasoning (rational thought), the logic form of any valid argument, you can not reason correctly if you use incorrect facts, or they are not valid.

Where do get your reasoning from?



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by bsbray11
And yet Bazant makes multiple unrealistic assumptions in favor of forcing the "collapse" to continue instead of actually arresting. But you intentionally ignore this, and the fact that Bazant didn't even show his work in the first place.


And yet you are unable to demonstrate that these assumptions invalidates his conclusions.


How can it NOT. If he is using unrealistic figures in favor of forcing the collapse to continue then he is wrong from the start. For it to be correct there would have to be no bias for collapse, or arrest.

Just like the rest of the OS Bazant worked with a preconceived conclusion and made his paper fit that conclusion.
That is not science.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Premises:
Truthers are always correct.
Truthers claim 911 is an inside job.
Conculsion:
911 was an inside job.

See, perfectly sound logic based on false premises.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


You really do not understand logic do you? If a building would collapse making assumptions in favor of collapse, it would also collapse making more realistic assumptions (as they would automatically be less in favor of collapse).



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join