One Smart Chic

Originally posted by bsbray11
And I suppose you're still totally ignoring the fact that Bazant pretends the energy focuses on one floor at a time .

And you're still wrong.

Bazant assumes that all of the energy focuses on the columns, giving the mosr favorable chance of collapse arrest.

Why don't you try correcting your statements now?

Originally posted by -PLB-

This just shows how stubborn and uneducated you are..

More like unbridled arrogance and ignorance.

They totally rock when combined like we see Brian doing....

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

You are the only person in the world I know of who has issues obtaining that information. So it is your personal issue really.

Yeah, everybody else just doesn't talk about it.

I asked Richard Gage about it. He said the NIST wasn't releasing accurate blueprints. That was in 2008.

Is anyone disputing that skyscrapers have to hold themselves up? Doesn't every level have to support the combined weights of all levels above. It is so curious that they can't just specify the amount of steel and the amount of concrete on every level. Or at least only Gregory Urich comes the closest to doing it though the accuracy may be questioned. Why does he have 19 tons for a perimeter panel at the 10th floor when an article from 1970 says 22 tons?

And why is this data from a computer programmer in Sweden and not from structural engineers in the United States?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Yeah, everybody else just doesn't talk about it.

Yep, for the same reason everybody else doesn't talk about all the snakes on the moon.

I asked Richard Gage about it. He said the NIST wasn't releasing accurate blueprints. That was in 2008.

Now there's a reliable source.

Is anyone disputing that skyscrapers have to hold themselves up?

Yes, because what skyscrapers do is hold themselves together and transfer their load, dead, live, wind, etc. to the foundation.

Doesn't every level have to support the combined weights of all levels above.

Nope, unless the level you're talking about is the foundation. Otherwise the structure only needs to be strong enough and in proper alignment to transfer the loads from itself and everything above it to the foundation where the load is then distributed to the earth.

It is so curious that they can't just specify the amount of steel and the amount of concrete on every level.

Its so curious that you can't find it in NIST NCSTAR 1-1A. Keep looking! Best way to look - read it.

Or at least only Gregory Urich comes the closest to doing it though the accuracy may be questioned. Why does he have 19 tons for a perimeter panel at the 10th floor when an article from 1970 says 22 tons?

Error? People make them you know. But everything you need to do your own calculations is in NIST NCSTAR 1-1A.

And why is this data from a computer programmer in Sweden and not from structural engineers in the United States?

What data?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

And why is this data from a computer programmer in Sweden and not from structural engineers in the United States?

What data?

I used Google to find that NCSTAR1 report you specified. You can use Google to track down Gregory Urich.

psik

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
And I suppose you're still totally ignoring the fact that Bazant pretends the energy focuses on one floor at a time .

And you're still wrong.

Bazant assumes that all of the energy focuses on the columns, giving the mosr favorable chance of collapse arrest.

I never denied that he pretended all of the kinetic energy went only onto the columns. But he also made a handful of other assumptions that you conveniently ignore. It's ironic you accuse me of ignorance and arrogance, when ignoring facts is the definition of ignorance, and throwing insults on top of it is the definition of arrogance.

If you had any intentions of being honest (I don't think you've EVER had any such intentions), you'd have responded directly to what I was pointing out. Instead you want to pigeon-hole all the other assumptions he made to focus on one, that you feel (based on nothing scientific whatsoever) justifies all the other garbage in his paper.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Nothing you say invalidates what I say, its just a lame attempt to ridicule me. Yes, energy is consumed during crushing of a floor. Yes, floors were not previously damaged. Yes, some energy is transfered to lower floors. Those are all non arguments, it doesn't change the fact you can just take a safety factor for loads and apply it to energy consumed.

You never showed where Ross did any such thing in his criticism of Bazant. You are still arguing a total lie.


And you are wrong, the fact that some of the energy is transferred down to the lower floors is a legitimate problem with Bazant's paper. By assuming the opposite, he provides himself with more energy than would have actually been available. Just like when he assumes a free-fall drop to start it all off, which also never happened, and just like when he assumes 95% of the total building mass is available to him the entire time and assumes only enough steel to meet design loads rather than the actual safety factors.

What do you think you're accomplishing by being so damned biased that you refuse to even acknowledge how these unrealistic assumptions are in favor of continuing the collapse rather than arresting it? Do you think by constantly posting this nonsense over and over you're actually going to succeed in making me stupid enough to see any sense at all in what you're posting?

Originally posted by bsbray11
You never showed where Ross did any such thing in his criticism of Bazant. You are still arguing a total lie.

Its in that quote of yours:

The second error made by Dr. Bazant is his failure to take account of the factor of safety designed into the towers' construction. He makes no mention whatsoever of this crucial design parameter. This failure leads to a major underestimation of the ability of the columns to resist the downward acting forces.

The effect of this error by Dr. Bazant is an error in his ratio of energies. If this is adjusted to take account of a factor of safety of 4 the ratio is reduced from his value of 8.4 to 2.1.

He takes a safety factor for forces, and applies it to the energy consumed. I highlighted the words you should take notice of. But that not even the worst part of this quote. It is a completely made up fantasy that Bazant didn't account for safety factors. There is no reason whatsoever to believe Bazant made that mistake.

And you are wrong, the fact that some of the energy is transferred down to the lower floors is a legitimate problem with Bazant's paper. By assuming the opposite, he provides himself with more energy than would have actually been available. Just like when he assumes a free-fall drop to start it all off, which also never happened, and just like when he assumes 95% of the total building mass is available to him the entire time and assumes only enough steel to meet design loads rather than the actual safety factors.

Bazant did not ignore this energy loss, he analyzed it and concluded it is insignificant, so didn't include them in his model to avoid unnecessary complexity. If you think he is wrong, then show it. Show how much energy is lost in the columns below the section that is failing.

What do you think you're accomplishing by being so damned biased that you refuse to even acknowledge how these unrealistic assumptions are in favor of continuing the collapse rather than arresting it? Do you think by constantly posting this nonsense over and over you're actually going to succeed in making me stupid enough to see any sense at all in what you're posting?

You think that having all the mass falling exactly on the supporting columns is in favor of collapse? Here is some news for you: it is not. He also ignores fracturing, assuming everything bends to it maximum, consuming most energy. Also completely unrealistic. And then you come with some tiny insignificant energy sink that is also mentioned by Bazant as insignificant, and of course you (or anyone else for that matter) is incapable of producing some actual numbers we can work with. No, just mentioning it should debunk Bazant. What about the refrigerator on floor 45? Also wasn't in his model. HA. Debunked.

Originally posted by -PLB-
He takes a safety factor for forces, and applies it to the energy consumed.

...after using the relevant formulas to convert between forces and energies.

Are you still ignorantly denying that force and energy are related quantities in physics? Yes or no?

And you are wrong, the fact that some of the energy is transferred down to the lower floors is a legitimate problem with Bazant's paper. By assuming the opposite, he provides himself with more energy than would have actually been available. Just like when he assumes a free-fall drop to start it all off, which also never happened, and just like when he assumes 95% of the total building mass is available to him the entire time and assumes only enough steel to meet design loads rather than the actual safety factors.

Bazant did not ignore this energy loss, he analyzed it and concluded it is insignificant, so didn't include them in his model to avoid unnecessary complexity.

This is pure rhetoric. Reality is apparently too complex for Bazant to accurately model. It's one lame excuse after another. And actually the reason he gives for assuming up to 95% of the mass was available during the entire collapses, is because he freely admitted that otherwise his models would not give results consistent with physical observations (specifically the collapses would take too long in his models). So he ignores other physical observations to make up for it. And yes, that is a significant impact upon his model.

You think that having all the mass falling exactly on the supporting columns is in favor of collapse?

No, and you know better. All the other assumptions I just listed above were only optimistic to forcing the "collapse" to continue. Resorting to more intentional manipulation of the discussion I see. When are you going to come up with some honest tricks for a change, "PLB"?

Originally posted by bsbray11
...after using the relevant formulas to convert between forces and energies.

I am really eager to see that. It was nowhere mentioned in that quote of yours. So where can I find this?

Are you still ignorantly denying that force and energy are related quantities in physics? Yes or no?

How about this: you show me where I deny this, and I will answer your question. Hint: don't bother searching, I never denied it.

This is pure rhetoric. Reality is apparently too complex for Bazant to accurately model. It's one lame excuse after another. And actually the reason he gives for assuming up to 95% of the mass was available during the entire collapses, is because he freely admitted that otherwise his models would not give results consistent with physical observations (specifically the collapses would take too long in his models). So he ignores other physical observations to make up for it. And yes, that is a significant impact upon his model.

Sure, jump to the next point. The 95% again. And no, that figure is not relevant for the question if the collapse would arrest, like I explained to you many times already, without success. Hmm, I see a pattern.

No, and you know better. All the other assumptions I just listed above were only optimistic to forcing the "collapse" to continue. Resorting to more intentional manipulation of the discussion I see. When are you going to come up with some honest tricks for a change, "PLB"?

So show the world how the factors you mention are relevant. Give us some numbers. Or what else is there left to discuss? Your word?

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by bsbray11
...after using the relevant formulas to convert between forces and energies.

I am really eager to see that. It was nowhere mentioned in that quote of yours. So where can I find this?

To convert from forces (Newtons) to energy (Joules), you multiply Newtons by meters. Energy/work is literally equivalent to force applied over a distance.

So are you going to finally admit that force and energy are physically related quantities, or keep flailing around the issue and showing how much better Ross already understands the issue than you do?

Are you still ignorantly denying that force and energy are related quantities in physics? Yes or no?

How about this: you show me where I deny this, and I will answer your question. Hint: don't bother searching, I never denied it.

Then what in the hell is your difficulty with Ross's conversion?

Just too proud to admit you were wrong?

Sure, jump to the next point. The 95% again. And no, that figure is not relevant for the question if the collapse would arrest, like I explained to you many times already, without success. Hmm, I see a pattern.

You're just now seeing a pattern? I've been pointing out the same basic physics errors to you for months already.

So show the world how the factors you mention are relevant. Give us some numbers. Or what else is there left to discuss? Your word?

No, you don't have to take my word on any of this. That's why I originally showed you Gordon Ross's paper that refutes Bazant's model.

Again, here, for anyone to read:

NIST and Dr. Bazant -- A Simultaneous Failure

Originally posted by bsbray11
Then what in the hell is your difficulty with Ross's conversion?

He doesn't make any conversion. He takes a load safety factor, and in the next sentence he applies this factor to energy consumed in crushing floors. The forces involved in crushing a floor are completely different from the design load capacity, and depend on things like position and strength of the beams and their connections and the shape of the columns.

And I point it out again, as this is the most damning thing in his argument, nowhere it even becomes apparent that Bazant forgot about any safety factor. It is a pure fabrication of your hero.

Anyway, I am done with this. You either understand it or not.

You're just now seeing a pattern? I've been pointing out the same basic physics errors to you for months already.

And I have been explaining why you are wrong about it, without success. It is the reason I didn't want to discuss the subject with you. Not sure why I am doing it now anyways, you are making the same mistakes over and over.

No, you don't have to take my word on any of this. That's why I originally showed you Gordon Ross's paper that refutes Bazant's model.

Again, here, for anyone to read:

NIST and Dr. Bazant -- A Simultaneous Failure

I kind of miss some minor things, like, the actual physics. For example how much energy is lost in the lower part of the columns?

Originally posted by -PLB-
He doesn't make any conversion. He takes a load safety factor, and in the next sentence he applies this factor to energy consumed in crushing floors.

Maybe he assumed that the only relevant portion of his audience would be competent enough to take a force and multiply it by a distance.

The forces involved in crushing a floor are completely different from the design load capacity, and depend on things like position and strength of the beams and their connections and the shape of the columns.

I don't see where Ross ever stated otherwise.

And I point it out again, as this is the most damning thing in his argument, nowhere it even becomes apparent that Bazant forgot about any safety factor. It is a pure fabrication of your hero.

I don't suppose that would be apparent to someone who stubbornly refuses to even acknowledge that all it takes to go from force to energy is to multiply by a displacement. If you have ever actually read Ross's paper then it's apparent that you didn't spend very long thinking about it.

Anyway, I am done with this. You either understand it or not.

You've said that multiple times and yet you keep coming back to proclaim Bazant as some hero of your own and then run away before anyone gets a good chance to criticize his work.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Maybe he assumed that the only relevant portion of his audience would be competent enough to take a force and multiply it by a distance.

I think that he assumed that the only relevant portion of his audience would not understand physics.

I don't see where Ross ever stated otherwise.

He doesn't. So how did he do this conversion? Where is his integral of the force over distance? Nothing of that. He takes a load safety factor and directly applies it to energy consume, ignoring all what I just said.

I don't suppose that would be apparent to someone who stubbornly refuses to even acknowledge that all it takes to go from force to energy is to multiply by a displacement. If you have ever actually read Ross's paper then it's apparent that you didn't spend very long thinking about it.

To go from force to energy all it takes is not a multiplication by a distance. That is only valid if the force is constant, which isn't the case here. In this case you need to do an integral.

But apart from that, you don't really come with anything that shows Bazant forgot any safety factor. Did you take that on the word of your hero?

You've said that multiple times and yet you keep coming back to proclaim Bazant as some hero of your own and then run away before anyone gets a good chance to criticize his work.

Well, I was at least done with this yesterday

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by bsbray11
Maybe he assumed that the only relevant portion of his audience would be competent enough to take a force and multiply it by a distance.

I think that he assumed that the only relevant portion of his audience would not understand physics.

You think he wrote the paper for you? Then he would have elaborated on how you only have to multiply a force by a distance to arrive at work/energy, would he not? Instead he seems to have taken for granted that the reader would already understand this.

I don't see where Ross ever stated otherwise.

He doesn't. So how did he do this conversion?

Would you like to take a wild guess, based on what I've been repeating to you over and over?

To go from force to energy all it takes is not a multiplication by a distance. That is only valid if the force is constant, which isn't the case here. In this case you need to do an integral.

Ah, then now you know exactly what he would have to do to convert between one thing and another. So you're saying his conversation was wrong now, maybe?

But apart from that, you don't really come with anything that shows Bazant forgot any safety factor. Did you take that on the word of your hero?

No, but I'd rather you try to figure it out on your own than trying to give you all the answers because of how antagonistic you are, you really need to look at the problem yourself first. Then you will see this isn't just me and Gordon Ross making this stuff up, but a real problem. So try to find the real safety factors for the perimeter and core columns on various floors yourself and see what you come up with. Remember these factors are how many times the design load can be multiplied before the yield strength is reached, and the yield strength, in turn, is the point at which permanent deformation begins to occur. This is not even the point at which everything is immediately destroyed with a sheer failure. So research what the safety factors would have been on the various floors, for the perimeter and core columns. Then go back and take a look at Bazant and Ross's papers.

I like that word "hero," that's a cute name for Gordon Ross. But it doesn't take much of a hero to point out Bazant's physics errors with his model. You are still only addressing one assumption at a time that Bazant made optimistic to forcing a "collapse." Just so we keep track of the big picture here in terms of Ross's paper, which you have barely scratched the surface of.

You've said that multiple times and yet you keep coming back to proclaim Bazant as some hero of your own and then run away before anyone gets a good chance to criticize his work.

Well, I was at least done with this yesterday

Right, I have a feeling we will be painfully going over this for months. It'll be fun to come back to this conversation in the future and see how far your position has been forced to evolve, eh?

Ah, then now you know exactly what he would have to do to convert between one thing and another. So you're saying his conversation was wrong now, maybe?

Of course I know how to do this, that is why I know Ross is wrong. The design load capacity only applies the moment the columns are still intact. After that, the load capacity changes depending on all kind of factors. Yet he still applies the same safety factor on it.

No, but I'd rather you try to figure it out on your own than trying to give you all the answers because of how antagonistic you are, you really need to look at the problem yourself first. Then you will see this isn't just me and Gordon Ross making this stuff up, but a real problem. So try to find the real safety factors for the perimeter and core columns on various floors yourself and see what you come up with. Remember these factors are how many times the design load can be multiplied before the yield strength is reached, and the yield strength, in turn, is the point at which permanent deformation begins to occur. This is not even the point at which everything is immediately destroyed with a sheer failure. So research what the safety factors would have been on the various floors, for the perimeter and core columns. Then go back and take a look at Bazant and Ross's papers.

So you are given the chance to prove Bazant actually wrong, and you tell me to look for it myself. Its a classic truther response. I looked, I didn't find it. So spew it out already.

I like that word "hero," that's a cute name for Gordon Ross.

But it doesn't take much of a hero to point out Bazant's physics errors with his model. You are still only addressing one assumption at a time that Bazant made optimistic to forcing a "collapse." Just so we keep track of the big picture here in terms of Ross's paper, which you have barely scratched the surface of.

I call him your hero because you accept anything he says without any critical thinking. I very well understand it is nothing personal, you accept what he says because it is in line with your preposition. I have yet to see any argument that invalidates the conclusion that gravity alone would be enough for the collapse.

Right, I have a feeling we will be painfully going over this for months. It'll be fun to come back to this conversation in the future and see how far your position has been forced to evolve, eh?

Lets indeed hope I learn something in the process. I hope to learn and understand the psyche of truthers better. In my opinion it has interesting similarities with a religion.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Ah, then now you know exactly what he would have to do to convert between one thing and another. So you're saying his conversation was wrong now, maybe?

Of course I know how to do this, that is why I know Ross is wrong.

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?

So you are given the chance to prove Bazant actually wrong, and you tell me to look for it myself. Its a classic truther response. I looked, I didn't find it. So spew it out already.

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?

I call him your hero because you accept anything he says without any critical thinking.

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.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Is anyone disputing that skyscrapers have to hold themselves up?

Yes, because what skyscrapers do is hold themselves together and transfer their load, dead, live, wind, etc. to the foundation.

Yeah, you keep talking this TRANSFER crap as though every level isn't holding any weight.

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.

psik

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.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


The steel did increase if anyone is trying to claim it didn't? The core columns tapered in thickness and size.

This site shows all the core column Data...

wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

Here is a gif of one of the columns (core column 501) showing it's change in thickness and size through it's length...



Starts at 5" thick and goes down to less than 1" at the top.

Here is a pic of the base of a core column...



Here is a core column from higher up the building, connected to a set of I beams...