Building Collapses in Rio

Notice how the really basic, fundamental questions never get answered? 100% negative, ad-hom criticism, no specifics. No generalities, either! What model? What data?

Maybe the reason these fundamental questions aren't answered is because there is no answer.

reply to post by IrishWristwatch

The latest round of lying tops anything previous.

You mean you didn't claim that the scientific method can be dispensed with?
That you didn't claim that a description of a physical system can be valid when it defies the second law of thermodynamics?
That you didn't argue that logic can be dispensed with if your math is solid?

Did you go through the other forum deleting those threads?

reply to post by IrishWristwatch

Notice how the really basic, fundamental questions never get answered? 100% negative, ad-hom criticism, no specifics. No generalities, either! What model? What data?

Again, I put it to you that if you do not think that the paradox of analysis is a generality that precludes any method but the scientific from being valid that you do not know what a generality is.

The data, Irish, is the observations and measurements from the collapse footage. The specifics is that you attack anything that even starts looking like it might be a comprehensive explanation in favor of isolated math that anyone can do on a spreadsheet.

You have NEVER produced anything that can be similarly tested outside of tilted derivative of Bazant's block.

The only person on a "jihad" here is you, you are out to destroy anything that even begins to look like a systematic approach to solving this problem, on all sides. The record speaks for itself.

I will recant all my libelous claims against you if you will answer the following in the affirmative:

1) An argument based on solid math that involves logically invalidity is invalid [and there is no way to "seal" a mathematical argument against logical invalidity].

2) The ONLY test for the robustness of a model description is the scientific method, never mathematical formalism.

3) That a conceptual model that requires (or implies) a decrease in entropy in a system is always incomplete even if the system is not closed in reality.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
You mean you didn't claim that the scientific method can be dispensed with?

I said **** science. There's a difference. You don't notice that my actions speak louder than my words. While you've been stumbling over yourself to insult me here with vague generalities, you fail to notice I'm doing sciency things all over the place. Practitioners of science are not as awash in the myth of high science as are those sitting on the sidelines (with accomplishment envy).

You also totally ignored the context in which it was said. You'd been annoying me for weeks with an endless barrage of nonsense in which you condemned all manners of things you'd never once read or examined. While you were joy-riding my ass, with the tiresome lectures about how all this stuff you've never even perused was unscientific because of thus and such, in a moment of frustration I said "if that's what science is about, **** science."

Only thing is, what you described as being unscientific - isn't. So, your idea of what science is about can remain ****ed for all time, as far as I'm concerned. You're an armchair quarterback. A backseat driver; never sat behind the wheel in your life, and blind to boot! But you never can just shut up from that back seat.

That you didn't claim that a description of a physical system can be valid when it defies the second law of thermodynamics?

I did not. The description in question does not defy the second law, as I explained to you.

That you didn't argue that logic can be dispensed with if your math is solid?

No. Here are all quotes containing the word 'logic' in my posts at the 911 Forum, from the time you started your vacation and going back over a year:

All the precepts of logic will do no good if you don't know what to plug in to those tokens.

The issue of scale is a primary example of what I mean when I say knowledge of the scientific method is insufficient in itself; knowledge of the problem domain is also required. It is not optional and to suggest differently is ridiculous. Otherwise, anyone who made it through a few philosophy and logic classes successfully would also by default be automatically qualified mathematicians, physicists, chemists, biologists, engineers and so on.

Only a moron or zealot would miss the fact that WTC7 is the test case, NOT a reference case (circular logic, anyone?) and other real world examples should sensibly be brought to the table for purposes of comparison and see how 'expected' over g really is. The tally stands at ZERO examples of over g in vertical collapse due to fire, ONE due to CD.

This abortion of logic was then paraded about JREF, and now here, without shame!

I have seen firsthand, for long enough and in a broad spectrum of venues, 9/11 popular debate is predominantly driven by ideology on both sides, not by evidence and logic.

That's all I need to pick out from amongst all of Clinger's TECHNOBABBLE to know he's still clueless about elementary logic. See above. Shameful for someone with a doctorate in mathematics.

There's a fair bit of gibberish concerning formal logic and a pair of statements by Major_Tom.

"...these accelerations are outside the range of known demolitions ..."
...measured demolitions do not come close to g accelerations..."

and W.D. Clinger's response (this time not in circus fonts):

SnowCrash, as usual your research and logic are stellar.

At least what I see here is excellent application of abductive logic (horror of horrors!), and that's the best that can be hoped for. Also rare.

- offensive
- abusive tone
- repetitive spamming
- off topic with no redeeming qualities
- excessive disregard for acceptable principles of logic, science or debate

If caution, prudence, logic and diligence are the traits of a lawyer...

Not much to it, also not much to obscure the logic.

Not only did I not say what you claimed, there are quite a few statements in there which indicate I feel exactly the opposite of what you ascribe to me.

See why I think you must be talking about someone else? But you're not. Which makes you a liar, now bordering on chronic.

You don't know whether you're coming or going. Stop pestering me and stop derailing this thread with your ad-homs.

Did you go through the other forum deleting those threads?

No, I moved one to the ****pile, where it belongs. Stop derailing this thread with issues from another forum.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
I will recant all my libelous claims against you if you will answer the following in the affirmative:

I doubt it very much.

1) An argument based on solid math that involves logically invalidity is invalid [and there is no way to "seal" a mathematical argument against logical invalidity].

Agreed.

2) The ONLY test for the robustness of a model description is the scientific method, never mathematical formalism.

I would reject a model that failed in mathematical rigor, TOO, but I agree.

3) That a conceptual model that requires (or implies) a decrease in entropy in a system is always incomplete even if the system is not closed in reality.

Do not agree for the general case. If the system is open with external inputs defined, there can be a decrease of entropy within the system boundary. That's what external inputs are about! If you meant that an open system which has no external input defined which can legitimately account for entropy decrease is an incomplete description, I agree.

Of course, all of this is terribly, terribly moot since the system in question did not decrease in entropy!

Show of hands, folks, please: who here thinks the entropy of the towers decreased as a result of collapse? Anyone here with the balls to try to put a measure on the change in entropy? Does anyone here think building collapse is a reversible process?

Instead of taking back your slurs, I'd much prefer you take those slurs and show specifically how they apply to the derivation of the equation of motion I did.

There was a flagrant error in there, and -PLB- spotted it. That's what I call useful critique. Are you able to spot the error, even when it's already been identified? See, at this point, I almost doubt you can copy and paste what -PLB- said, but that's not what I'm asking for. Tell me what was wrong with it; why it's wrong.

I'll bet you can't even state what physical system that derivation applies to. I'll bet there's nothing meaningful at all you can say about it. Nothing. You don't know what it says, what it applies to, its conclusions, or limitations.

But that doesn't stop you from saying things like:

This is what bugs me so intensely about you Irish, you think that no one can see through your jargon and spot the model underneath...

OK, boss, here's your big chance. Spot the model! Gain credibility by describing what those equations are for, and what information may be gleaned from the result. Even more by finding any errors which haven't already been pointed out. Please, now, you ought to be able to expose that bit of work for being the crap you say it is... how do you put it?

We can do the math, idealization and simplification only when we have established the model has some real world predictive power, doing it before is just a waste of everybody's time.

You can derive your model mathematically too of course, but it has to be rigorous formalism, none of these touchy feelly interjections you come up with.

and

Your ideas are not rigorous as you pretend they are, they are little more than jargon, the calculations you do do are unconnected to any rigorous model and there is no display of any attempt to develop a logical chain reasoning for your disjointed ideas.

Someone of your stature and repute in science should have no problem making good on your slurs against me. Don't like that particular treatment? Find another. Find any work I've done and pick it apart, I dare you. You must have had something in mind when you said it.

The data, Irish, is the observations and measurements from the collapse footage.

What, exactly, do you think I do with that data? Name ONE thing. ONE.

The specifics is that you attack anything that even starts looking like it might be a comprehensive explanation in favor of isolated math that anyone can do on a spreadsheet.

Oh really? Such as?

You have NEVER produced anything that can be similarly tested outside of tilted derivative of Bazant's block.

How would you know? Name one thing I've produced.

You say these things and have nothing to back them up. You know there's data, of some kind, so bully for you. But you object to how I "use" this data. In order to object to how I use it, you should at least be able to specify ONE thing I've done with it.

The only person on a "jihad" here is you, you are out to destroy anything that even begins to look like a systematic approach to solving this problem, on all sides. The record speaks for itself.

Haha, the record does indeed speak for itself. That's why I don't concern myself with your objections. If I ever got your approval on ANYTHING, it would be cause for alarm.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
... you are out to destroy anything that even begins to look like a systematic approach to solving this problem, on all sides.

By the way, what is the systematic approach or approaches I've set out to destroy - the ones that are going to solve this problem? While we're at it, what is the problem to solve? Can you state that?

I want to know what jihad I've been on, except for calling bunk pseudoscience what it is.

Does the "systematic approach" include claims that Newton's law means equal and opposite destruction? Does it include claims that the floor assemblies could not only support the upper section, they could stop it at any speed? These are the kind of things I've taken aim at here. These are not systematic approaches to anything, they are unequivocally false.

reply to post by Darkwing01


Let me see Darkwing, weren't you arguing that verification is not a part of science? With the smart ass argument that it is impossible to prove an observation? And for that reason you accept Jones junk paper without further question?

I hope you learned a bit more about science in the meanwhile. But to see you lecturing about science to people who are way ahead of you is ironic. It reminds me of you lecturing about logic, after which I showed dozens of logical fallacies in you posts. All ignored of course. Your latest blunder in your replies, about clipping sounds, went ignored too, after weaseling yourself out failed.

In the meanwhile, I never seen your explanation how the majority of debris should fall outside the footprint. Even you were laughing later on how "the electromagnetic" force isn't an explanation. Nor is mindless rambling about the normal force and then claiming I confuse the two, all while I never even talked about them.

How can that be Darkwing? As soon as something technical confronts you, you lock up and fall into meaningless ramblings. Well, maybe you always produce meaningless ramblings, which is why you don't notice it.

Of course, it is kind of funny seeing you (and other truthers) making up stuff and lie, in an attempt to save your face. But it is also kind of sad.

I'm also quite sick of your engineer-bashing.* You think it's cute, but coming from someone who couldn't possibly know less about it, it's pathetic. Physics students generally don't even recognize engineering as a discipline, but then they are just students. Most of them will end up being engineers, if they're lucky. But at least they're putting their money where their mouth is, walking the walk.

You can't ride the coattails of great scientists by quoting them, as if their accomplishments are your accomplishments. You've accomplished NOTHING in this field, or science, or engineering. You don't have time! Whenever I'm around, no matter the forum, all you do is ride my ass. As if I'm singlehandedly responsible for "The Problem of 9/11" remaining unsolved, hahaha!

In some respects, you are right about one thing: I am nobody. Of course, you wouldn't know it from the way you act. You'd think I was the devil himself, sulfur stench and all. Why are you so obsessed? I feel like I have my very own stalker. And it's creepy. You're creepy.


* Engineer bashing can be entertaining when it's done well. Greening issued some pretty penetrating bitchslaps when he chose to; you are no Greening.

Originally posted by -PLB-
It reminds me of you lecturing about logic, after which I showed dozens of logical fallacies in you posts.

I see his repuation is well-known. As SnowCrash pointed out, he started out one pompous-ass lecture on logic by affirming the consequent. The guy's a mess.

reply to post by IrishWristwatch

Show of hands, folks, please: who here thinks the entropy of the towers decreased as a result of collapse? Anyone here with the balls to try to put a measure on the change in entropy? Does anyone here think building collapse is a reversible process?

Wow, you are annoying.

The entropy of the building itself cannot be precisely measured. Of course not. I never pretended otherwise.

But the entropy, and more specifically the changes in entropy implied by BAZANT'S MODEL very much can be. What part of this are you having trouble understanding Irish, because you say one thing one moment and then play dumb the next.

The only thing I ever asked was if BAZANT'S FALLING SOLID BLOCK MODEL implies a decrease in entropy. I believe it does. BAZANT'S MODEL IS NOT A COMPLEX EVENT. If anything it is a gross oversimplification.

If the falling block model implies a decrease of entropy then the model itself is invalid regardless of the math that follows.

While we're at it, what is the problem to solve? Can you state that?

I am trying to establish whether there is a rigorous way to determine definitively if extra assistance outside of planes and fire was required to produce the the collapse as observed.

If you think that you can answer that question just by defining the observation ever more closely then a lecture on affirming the consequent is very much warranted.

reply to post by IrishWristwatch

Why are you so obsessed? I feel like I have my very own stalker. And it's creepy. You're creepy.

That would be much more effective had I not registered at this site 6 months before you and have 4 times as many posts as you on this site.

I also find it kind of ironic that you did not start posting here until AFTER you had your drinking buddies ban me from your site after I laughed at you for not being able to understand the difference between Bazant's model decreasing in entropy and the building decreasing in entropy and the significance of that charge. Couldn't even muster up the courage to do it yourself so you handed the reigns to people you knew wouldn't blink.

Why don't you go post on your site, what makes you come here all of a sudden after I'm gone for good?

The reason you becoming a regular here upsets me is that you will do the same thing you did at the other forum, spam quasi-thoughtful posts and work underhandedly to destroy anything that resembles a systematic treatment. Entropy works here too, it is far harder to create than to destroy. You have created nothing and revel in destroying thought by posting math that never rises beyond isolated solutions. Heaven forbid you should apply yourself to doing something systematic.

I don't buy your lame charade of considered neutrality anymore, it is a farce. You are a troll Irish, a clever one and perhaps the cleverest I've seen, but a troll nonetheless.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I don't see anything absurd about this at all. It's not as tall as the twin towers, for sure, but if carefully examined, we might learn something about buildings and collapses. Very likely this tragedy was caused by poor construction standards, or faulty construction that did not follow the design correctly.

How is the height of the buildings even relevant to the "paper loop" school of thought? I mean, your model is not representative of any particular building, but you claim that it behaves as the twin towers should have. Why does your model apply to the twin towers, and not to this building?

I could have used slices of toilet tissue rolls instead of paper loops. But the problem is the strength of the supports relative to the weight being supported. With toilet tissue rolls they could have been the same all of the way down. But the top 11 loops are singles and the next 17 are doubles and the bottom 5 are triples. My supports were so weak I had to make them stronger toward the bottom.

But buildings are not made with paper so how much difference was there between the top level of a 20 story building compared to the first level. We know the thickness of the steel varied from 1/4 inch to 5 inches in some columns of the WTC. That is why I want the tons of steel on every level.

The variation in the top 20 stories of the WTC should be similar to that in a 20 story building.



psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I could have used slices of toilet tissue rolls instead of paper loops. But the problem is the strength of the supports relative to the weight being supported. With toilet tissue rolls they could have been the same all of the way down. But the top 11 loops are singles and the next 17 are doubles and the bottom 5 are triples. My supports were so weak I had to make them stronger toward the bottom.

No that is not the problem. The main problem is that you don't get it. At all. The support columns in the WTC collapse were for a large part bypassed. Somehow this fact does not sink in.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I could have used slices of toilet tissue rolls instead of paper loops. But the problem is the strength of the supports relative to the weight being supported. With toilet tissue rolls they could have been the same all of the way down. But the top 11 loops are singles and the next 17 are doubles and the bottom 5 are triples. My supports were so weak I had to make them stronger toward the bottom.

No that is not the problem. The main problem is that you don't get it. At all. The support columns in the WTC collapse were for a large part bypassed. Somehow this fact does not sink in.

The horizontal beams in the core would still have had to impact each other.

If the floors outside the core had been all that was falling then the core would have remained standing.

psik

What I'm wondering is if all this back and forth bickering and pissing contest will ever result in some sort of a solution on this matter.

10 years later, and here we all are, some seemingly intelligent folks talking in circles around each other. Getting no where, except banned; from a god damned internet forum. Only then to sell your snake oil somewhere else, well, until you get banned from there that is..

I swear, it's like ATS has become the land of the rejects if not the misfit toys...

Forget about the nature of the collapse. That's all anyone ever argues about- the physics of it all. And where has that gotten us?

Thing is, once we've determined that the physics of the collapse couldn't be possible with just two aero planes and some fires- we STILL have to determine what brought it down, don't we. And we'll still have to come up with some sort of REAL evidence that shows explosives or some other mechanism was used.

So why don't we just cut to the chase then instead of flexing our muscles about how much we know (or don't know) about the physics and engineering of it all? If you're so damned convinced that explosives or something else was used- please provide the evidence of such- OR at least some sort of working hypothesis of how explosives (the muted kind) can account for the collapse that 2 aero planes and some fires couldn't. All those explosives and no residues were found anywhere. Not even by that joker Steven Jones who went out and independently tested the dust himself... Darn,.now what?

We have an engineer arguing with a physicist arguing with a lay person about the nature of the collapse. And no one can sway anyone either way because we all think we're right and the others are wrong.. Aaah, the human condition....

How long will this go on for I wonder?

At least the 2012 nonsense will end in a few months, so we got that going for us, which is nice...

reply to post by psikeyhackr


So do you think that these horizontal beams in the core were designed to carry the whole building above it? Or do you think they were designed to keep the core columns from buckling (by giving lateral support) and to carry the weight of the floor inside the core?

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
What I'm wondering is if all this back and forth bickering and pissing contest will ever result in some sort of a solution on this matter.

10 years later, and here we all are, some seemingly intelligent folks talking in circles around each other. Getting no where, except banned; from a god damned internet forum. Only then to sell your snake oil somewhere else, well, until you get banned from there that is..

Regardless of whether or not airliners and fire could destroy the twin towers the buildings had to hold themselves up and withstand the wind for almost 30 years.

So the entire physics profession needs to explain why it was not asking about the distributions of steel and concrete in 2002.

The 9/11 Decade is the fault of the Physics Profession no matter what.

psik