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: 9
19
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Nope, its well covered in NIST NCSTAR 1-1A. You should read it, very interesting stuff in there. Covers your question very well. Explains exactly why the amount of steel didn't have to increase. Great stuff. Not top secret or anything. However, you do have to read it. I can't help you there.


Well you need to actually show where it says that because either they, or you, are not being truthful.

You need to look at the site I linked above mate...

Columns tapering in size is normal for high rise buildings.


edit on 6/12/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Every level is under COMPRESSION. It is being pressed down by the weigh above and held up by the strength below therefore it must be strong enough to not be crushed in between. So the amount of steel had to increase down the building. But everybody is dodging explaining that


Nope, its well covered in NIST NCSTAR 1-1A. You should read it, very interesting stuff in there. Covers your question very well. Explains exactly why the amount of steel didn't have to increase. Great stuff. Not top secret or anything. However, you do have to read it. I can't help you there.


Some statements are so idiotic that a response is not even conceivable.

psik



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


Originally posted by hooper
Nope, its well covered in NIST NCSTAR 1-1A. You should read it, very interesting stuff in there. Covers your question very well. Explains exactly why the amount of steel didn't have to increase. Great stuff. Not top secret or anything. However, you do have to read it. I can't help you there.


Some statements are so idiotic that a response is not even conceivable.

psik


Ahh come on, everyone knows that buildings are constructed with smaller, lighter, and less massive columns
at the bottom of the tower. How else would they fall in seconds after being hit by a 7x7?


More proof right here that you can't debate government loyalists.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Then why don't you do the "correct" conversion and actually show that Ross did it wrong?

Or are you going to back-track on the fact that you can convert between forces and energies now?


I can only do this when I already know the forces, which I don't. Thats the whole issue here that Ross ignores. Bazant made estimates to calculate the total required energy, based on the information he had about the dimensions of the columns.

But this is besides the point anyhow. The point Ross his calculations are wrong.



No, you were asking me about the safety factors. I'm not going to spoon-feed you all the physics related to the WTC "collapses" that you are apparently ignorant of. You aren't even making any actual attempt to show that Ross's math is wrong so you obviously don't have any such intention in regards to me, either. Do you think it should be my job to give you physics lessons when you admit being ignorant of where Bazant neglected them? If I tell you outright where he did it you would just find something about it to ignorantly bicker about with a slew of fallacies no different than any other time. An example of this, that you just demonstrated, is for post after post after post you refused to acknowledge that forces and work/energy can be converted back and forth with a very simple operation. Trying to even teach you that basic fact was like pulling teeth, and degrading to both of us. So why don't you figure it out yourself so that we will already be on the same level, before you just use it as another opportunity to be immature?


In the case of the WTC forces and energy can not be converted with a very simple operation. Sure, the integral itself can be solved numerically, so that isn't the problem. But constructing this integral is a rather complex thing to do. I personally wouldn't know how to do this. I would have to do some serious studying in the field of structural engineering.

And as for you not willing to point out where Bazant made this mistake, all I can say is whatever. It seems you are not very sure about your case, so it is probably not worth it anyhow.


That's wrong, but what else can I say? This is exactly the kind of immaturity I'm talking about. This is why I don't want to spoon-feed you physics, because with your attitude, you would argue with me if I told you that force in physics is algebraically equivalent to mass multiplied by acceleration. And then what? We would be in the same stupid situation, you stubbornly denying basic physics, just like you just denying for post after post previously that force and energy/work were related physical quantities until it had to be forced down your throat -- and you're STILL trying to cough it up. If you learned this stuff on your own like you are supposed to then you wouldn't have to suffer through me trying to teach your the basic physics you constantly deny, just because I'm the one trying to explain it to you, and I have to be wrong no matter what.


You are being disingenuous. I nowhere denied that "force and energy/work were related physical quantities". In fact, I (implicitly) agreed to it from the start. You are either lying or you are being delusional again, constructing your own reality.
edit on 13-6-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by bsbray11
Then why don't you do the "correct" conversion and actually show that Ross did it wrong?


I can only do this when I already know the forces, which I don't. ...

But this is besides the point anyhow. The point Ross his calculations are wrong.


Oh, okay. So you can't prove that he's wrong, but he's wrong anyway.

Well you should have just stated from the start that this is all just your opinion, and that you are ignorant of all the data.




You are being disingenuous. I nowhere denied that "force and energy/work were related physical quantities". In fact, I (implicitly) agreed to it from the start.


Not hardly. You kept trying to imply that Ross was wrong because he could not convert between energy and forces, which is obviously wrong. Now you've changed your story to "it isn't that simple" and blah blah blah... And of course you still can't prove that he actually made any mathematical error anywhere.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Oh, okay. So you can't prove that he's wrong, but he's wrong anyway.

Well you should have just stated from the start that this is all just your opinion, and that you are ignorant of all the data.


So you require from me to prove that Ross is wrong by showing actual calculations, but you do not require any calculations from Ross that prove Bazant is wrong. That is what is called a double standard. I pointed out an error in Ross his method. For that argument it doesn't matter what the actual numbers are. He could even by some freak coincidence have used to correct value.The point is, if Ross wants to convince others that he is right, he is the one that has to come with the calculations that show this. His assertion "Bazant is wrong" is worthless.


Not hardly. You kept trying to imply that Ross was wrong because he could not convert between energy and forces, which is obviously wrong. Now you've changed your story to "it isn't that simple" and blah blah blah... And of course you still can't prove that he actually made any mathematical error anywhere.


My point has all along been that you can not just take a safety factor of loads and apply it to energy consumed when a floor is crushed. The argument has not changed a bit. And no, I can't prove he made any mathematical error anywhere because there aren't any maths, just baseless assertions.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
So you require from me to prove that Ross is wrong by showing actual calculations, but you do not require any calculations from Ross that prove Bazant is wrong.


If you'd pay attention, you'd see that what Bazant neglected to calculate at all in his paper is the entire problem. The force/energy dissipating down through the building is one example. Also you can see where he assumed a perfect free-fall instead of any realistic calculation there. And where is the safety factor mentioned in Bazant's paper?



That is what is called a double standard.


And it's what I call you not even trying.


My point has all along been that you can not just take a safety factor of loads and apply it to energy consumed when a floor is crushed.


Yes, you can. The safety factor is the number of times the design load can be multiplied before permanent deformation begins to occur. So you take the force associated with the design loads, and multiply it by the safety factor. That's just the force required for permanent deformations to begin to occur, not for total destruction. And then if you're still having trouble understanding how to convert from forces to energy then you are really beyond help.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
If you'd pay attention, you'd see that what Bazant neglected to calculate at all in his paper is the entire problem. The force/energy dissipating down through the building is one example.

Also you can see where he assumed a perfect free-fall instead of any realistic calculation there. And where is the safety factor mentioned in Bazant's paper?


This is, in my opinion, finally, some valid critique. He comes with a value but nowhere exactly shows how he got this. But think about it, if we do not know how he got it, how can Ross know he forgot the safety factors? I will answer this for you: he doesn't. It is a fabricated assertion. We now have two options. We rely on the expertise of Bazant and accept it is likely correct, or we show it is incorrect by doing the calculations ourselves. Like I said, I don't know how to do this. I have yet to see any truther (or non-truther for that matter) come with a good estimation that invalidates the one by Bazant. Ross sure didn't.


Yes, you can. The safety factor is the number of times the design load can be multiplied before permanent deformation begins to occur. So you take the force associated with the design loads, and multiply it by the safety factor. That's just the force required for permanent deformations to begin to occur, not for total destruction. And then if you're still having trouble understanding how to convert from forces to energy then you are really beyond help.


Like I said, most energy is consumed after permanent deformations have occurred. You are still having problems understanding how the forces completely change at this moment, and isn't anything like the design load capacity.
edit on 13-6-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
This is, in my opinion, finally, some valid critique.


That's sadistically hilarious to me considering it's the exact same thing I've been pointing out in Ross's paper this entire time. It's not like Ross's paper just magically changed with my last attempt to explain it to you, you know?


how can Ross know he forgot the safety factors?


Why didn't Bazant show his work in the first place?


I will answer this for you: he doesn't. It is a fabricated assertion.


And you say this because you have faith in Bazant first, of course, because he already subscribes to the same religion you do. Bazant is such an "expert" that he makes numerous assumptions that are unrealistic, and doesn't show his work. Perfect for you.


Like I said, most energy is consumed after permanent deformations have occurred.


And yet what evidence do you have that Bazant took into account the safety factors to even find the correct amount of energy consumption to reach permanent deformation in the first place? Ah yeah, you just take his word for it, because he's an "expert" that doesn't show his work.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
That's sadistically hilarious to me considering it's the exact same thing I've been pointing out in Ross's paper this entire time. It's not like Ross's paper just magically changed with my last attempt to explain it to you, you know?


Ross claims Bazant forgot safety factors. Do you now agree that Ross could not know this as we do not know how Bazant calculated the values he used?


Why didn't Bazant show his work in the first place?


A reason I can think of is that it is uninteresting well known physics, as he refers to a textbook. It is very usual to leave out the maths that everyone knows how to do in a paper. But this is speculation, I am not a structural engineer.


And you say this because you have faith in Bazant first, of course, because he already subscribes to the same religion you do. Bazant is such an "expert" that he makes numerous assumptions that are unrealistic, and doesn't show his work. Perfect for you.


It has nothing to do with faith. There are perfectly logical reasons why I believe Bazant. His work is peer reviewed. He has made many publications on the subject. There hasn't been any rebut of his work.

As soon as anyone can show why Bazant is wrong and can get that published in a peer review journal, I will accept that. I won't accept some random person on the Internet making baseless assertions.


And yet what evidence do you have that Bazant took into account the safety factors to even find the correct amount of energy consumption to reach permanent deformation in the first place? Ah yeah, you just take his word for it, because he's an "expert" that doesn't show his work.


Correct, I put a high value in the word of an expert that publishes in peer reviewed journals and I put a low value in the word of some guy on the Internet making some baseless assertions.

Just to add, if a random person on the Internet comes with a very convincing case that is well supported by maths and has been verified by several other people, I also put a higher value to it. But so far truthers have failed miserably.
edit on 13-6-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

It has nothing to do with faith. There are perfectly logical reasons why I believe Bazant. His work is peer reviewed. He has made many publications on the subject. There hasn't been any rebut of his work.

As soon as anyone can show why Bazant is wrong and can get that published in a peer review journal, I will accept that. I won't accept some random person on the Internet making baseless assertions.

Correct, I put a high value in the word of an expert that publishes in peer reviewed journals and I put a low value in the word of some guy on the Internet making some baseless assertions.

Just to add, if a random person on the Internet comes with a very convincing case that is well supported by maths and has been verified by several other people, I also put a higher value to it. But so far truthers have failed miserably.


-PBL- the emphasis was added by me. This post from PBL is in response from a truther with over 13 thousand posts here ar ATS. Posts, for the most part that continue to support unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. He accuses you, PLB of being part of a "religion". That you are the one that only agrees with something based only on faith. Yet, it is the truther that barks at the moon on a daily event without any facts. They will attempt to debate and look for other truthers to star their post. That's all they get! Support from their ilk. The victory of a truther is the continued support from other truthers. That's it.

Science does not support the claims they make. They know this. That is why you will never see a peer reviewed article published in a respectable journal. You will never see Richard Gage physically bring this petition to the government for a "truly independent investigation". You will never see Steven Jones get his dust samples analyzed by an independent source. There is a reason why, you know.

It's the same reason why Bsbray, Anok, and others will only posture and debate in a CT forum in the comfort of their living room, kitchen, library, or wherever. The scientific world does not agree with them. You can look at the 1,400 or so A&E "Professionals" that signed Gage's petition, yet not a single one of them have a peer reviewed article refuting the work of the NIST.

A decade will soon past. When will the truth movement finally walk the talk?
edit on 13-6-2011 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
You will never see Steven Jones get his dust samples analyzed by an independent source. There is a reason why, you know.


For that matter, you probably wont see Steven Jones come with any new research concerning 911. He has shifted his focus to another group of gullible people who believe that you can easily get free energy from the vacuum but it is suppressed by people in power. He uses a pretty well known design to increase a voltage and makes come standard measurement errors. The structure of that conspiracy is not that much different from the 911 conspiracy, where the idea is that most engineers know it was an inside job but the conspirators prevent them from talking. In both cases a powerful entity is preventing nearly all scientists in the world from talking or publishing (even anonymously). I think Jones must have recognized that and decided to widen his audience. The more congresses to go to and get payed for the merrier.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Thanks for popping over to Flight 11 lead hijacker has a Hebrew accent thread.

To borrow a line from ZZ Top, Hooper is bad, he is nation-wide.

And by bad, I mean bad, not cool.

www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=11595386#pid11595386

If you think he makes no sense here just take a glance at his grasp of linguistics.

Seems like he banged his head against one to many 5 inch thick steel columns.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   
One smart Chic?

Do you mean Chick?


Another so called expert or educated person?

Only a BS..not too smart!! Just average.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
...ahhh nevermind...
edit on 15-6-2011 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Ross claims Bazant forgot safety factors. Do you now agree that Ross could not know this as we do not know how Bazant calculated the values he used?


You are avoiding the fact that Bazant did not show his own work in the first place.



Why didn't Bazant show his work in the first place?


A reason I can think of is that it is uninteresting well known physics


Oh, okay, so the safety factor of the WTC is "uninteresting well known physics"? Then it should be easy for you to prove that the safety factor Ross used was wrong.



It has nothing to do with faith. There are perfectly logical reasons why I believe Bazant. His work is peer reviewed. He has made many publications on the subject. There hasn't been any rebut of his work.


Now you are outright lying. Now you are apparently claiming Ross's paper doesn't even exist? And how could Bazant's paper be peer-reviewed if he didn't even show his work? I guess you'll respond to that with another appeal to religious fantasy.


As soon as anyone can show why Bazant is wrong and can get that published in a peer review journal, I will accept that. I won't accept some random person on the Internet making baseless assertions.


There is nothing baseless about assertions that can be immediately verified by reading Bazant's own paper. You have a slew of erroneous assumptions and unrealistic applications of physics that you have to ignore to keep believing in Bazant's paper.



And yet what evidence do you have that Bazant took into account the safety factors to even find the correct amount of energy consumption to reach permanent deformation in the first place? Ah yeah, you just take his word for it, because he's an "expert" that doesn't show his work.


Correct, I put a high value in the word of an expert that publishes in peer reviewed journals and I put a low value in the word of some guy on the Internet making some baseless assertions.


Right, you put faith in a man who doesn't show his work and wrote his paper within hours of 9/11, but you outright dismiss criticisms made by another engineer that can be immediately substantiated just by reviewing Bazant's paper again.


But so far truthers have failed miserably.


You're in a textbook state of denial.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Yet, it is the truther that barks at the moon on a daily event without any facts. They will attempt to debate and look for other truthers to star their post. That's all they get! Support from their ilk. The victory of a truther is the continued support from other truthers. That's it.


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 can look at the 1,400 or so A&E "Professionals" that signed Gage's petition, yet not a single one of them have a peer reviewed article refuting the work of the NIST.


It's not that there haven't been peer reviewed papers. It's that whenever it does happen, you religious folk begin making slanderous attacks. 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.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You are avoiding the fact that Bazant did not show his own work in the first place.


Avoiding it? I acknowledged it and we are talking about it right now aren't we? How is that avoiding?


Oh, okay, so the safety factor of the WTC is "uninteresting well known physics"? Then it should be easy for you to prove that the safety factor Ross used was wrong.


Did I mention yet that I am not a structural engineer?


Now you are outright lying. Now you are apparently claiming Ross's paper doesn't even exist? And how could Bazant's paper be peer-reviewed if he didn't even show his work? I guess you'll respond to that with another appeal to religious fantasy.


Great, I am lying again. About what exactly?



There is nothing baseless about assertions that can be immediately verified by reading Bazant's own paper. You have a slew of erroneous assumptions and unrealistic applications of physics that you have to ignore to keep believing in Bazant's paper.


And when I ask you where Bazant forgot this safety factor, I was told to look myself. It seems you are having some major issues with "immediately verifying" it yourself.


Right, you put faith in a man who doesn't show his work and wrote his paper within hours of 9/11, but you outright dismiss criticisms made by another engineer that can be immediately substantiated just by reviewing Bazant's paper again.


Faith is believing in something without any good reason. I already gave my reasons why I believe Bazant his work is plausible. On the other hand, you never gave a good reason why you believe Ross to be correct. Why do you believe Ross to be correct?



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by bsbray11
You are avoiding the fact that Bazant did not show his own work in the first place.


Avoiding it? I acknowledged it and we are talking about it right now aren't we? How is that avoiding?


Because Ross wrote a paper criticizing Bazant's paper. 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. And Bazant wrote his paper first, and makes a number of other erroneous assumptions that can already be proven to be unrealistic, such as assuming a total free-fall of one floor, assuming 95% of the total mass was available to provide its full kinetic energy for the entire "collapse" period and ignoring the energy absorption of the lower floors.



Oh, okay, so the safety factor of the WTC is "uninteresting well known physics"? Then it should be easy for you to prove that the safety factor Ross used was wrong.


Did I mention yet that I am not a structural engineer?


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



Now you are outright lying. Now you are apparently claiming Ross's paper doesn't even exist?


Great, I am lying again. About what exactly?


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.



There is nothing baseless about assertions that can be immediately verified by reading Bazant's own paper. You have a slew of erroneous assumptions and unrealistic applications of physics that you have to ignore to keep believing in Bazant's paper.


And when I ask you where Bazant forgot this safety factor, I was told to look myself. It seems you are having some major issues with "immediately verifying" it yourself.


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.



Right, you put faith in a man who doesn't show his work and wrote his paper within hours of 9/11, but you outright dismiss criticisms made by another engineer that can be immediately substantiated just by reviewing Bazant's paper again.


Faith is believing in something without any good reason. I already gave my reasons why I believe Bazant his work is plausible.


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."


Why do you believe Ross to be correct?


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.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Because Ross wrote a paper criticizing Bazant's paper. 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. And Bazant wrote his paper first, and makes a number of other erroneous assumptions that can already be proven to be unrealistic, such as assuming a total free-fall of one floor, assuming 95% of the total mass was available to provide its full kinetic energy for the entire "collapse" period and ignoring the energy absorption of the lower floors.


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. Besides, I pointed out what Ross did wrong. When are you going to point out Bazants mistake? And again, it is not faith, I gave reasonable reasons, but I understand why you ignore those reasons.


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. You even called it "overcomplicated garbage". An electrical engineer does understand what it all means. The same goes for structural engineering. Just because you and me are pretty much clueless about the involved physics (one probably more than the other), doesn't mean a structural engineer is. And guess what, those are the people that review an read papers like that.


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, not about a baseless assertion it is wrong. And my standard is already pretty low as I don't necessarily require it to be published in a peer reviewed journal, although that would help the argument significantly.


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.


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.


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.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join