|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
2nd November 2008, 06:09 AM | #241 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 782
|
Wow he is just excusing his lack of engineering, calculations and demonstrations with claiming his paper is for children.
|
__________________
L.H 1919 - 1993 R.I.P Unfortunately the 911truth movement web site does not allow any opinions contrary to their own, or I would have presented my views. David Scott - CTBUH Chairman |
|
2nd November 2008, 06:31 AM | #242 |
Muse
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 510
|
Quote:
At a certain moment, you must use scientific terms that children don't understand. Physics aren't aimed at every child. If you keep using babbling words, you're not a scientist. You'll spread lies by oversimplifying. BTW, even scientific shows for children teach how to have a scientific way of thinking. |
__________________
Like a toy, the black dinosaur walked towards a Goomba and asked him: "What do Truthy Chain Chomps say when they bark? Twoof! Twoof! Twoof!" *badum pschhh* My 9/11 Crackpot Index |
|
2nd November 2008, 09:07 AM | #243 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,778
|
There are people here that actually know a thing or two about the topic you choose to rape. I'm not one of them, but I'm certainly not going to be offended if you choose to write for them. If all you do is write like a child, even amongst other professionals in the field, then how does that really make you look? Think about that... |
2nd November 2008, 09:36 AM | #244 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
|
2nd November 2008, 09:40 AM | #245 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
|
"But let's start with clear thinking and common sense."
|
2nd November 2008, 10:36 AM | #246 |
Muse
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 510
|
Quote:
And "rigid" != "indestructible" |
__________________
Like a toy, the black dinosaur walked towards a Goomba and asked him: "What do Truthy Chain Chomps say when they bark? Twoof! Twoof! Twoof!" *badum pschhh* My 9/11 Crackpot Index |
|
2nd November 2008, 10:56 AM | #247 |
hairy farting brute
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 970
|
Heiwa thinks that he’s the rational one, and Bazant is the babbling idiot?
All the laughing dogs in the world wouldn’t do that one justice! |
2nd November 2008, 04:17 PM | #248 |
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
|
Hint, what role did the hat truss play in the upper structure?
Quote:
And you cannot assume that the entire lower structure acted as a single unit in your calculations. The failures should be calculated on a floor by floor basis, or on a per connection basis. So in that sense, treating the upper block as a single unit (for the purposes of energy calculations) is far more accurate than your treatment of the lower block as a single unit (for the purposes of calculating stress loads and buckling). If you believe otherwise, show your math. |
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon |
|
2nd November 2008, 05:48 PM | #249 |
Incromulent Logic
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,979
|
|
__________________
Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense.-Me The conspiracist is not merely illogical: he assaults logic.~ Pomeroo |
|
2nd November 2008, 10:25 PM | #250 |
NWO Public Relations Dept.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 587
|
|
__________________
"Fantasy-based people can invent new crap faster than fact-based people can debunk it." - BigAl "Even if you're arguing with an ideological brick wall, you might be in listening range of someone who still has the ability to think. Give it a shot." - jasonpatterson |
|
3rd November 2008, 05:23 AM | #251 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,895
|
Oh no? Lets see, you claim to be a working, qualified engineer.
You are either a liar, a hack or Sweden (? ) has TERRIBLE expectations of it's engineers, and will let anyone through. I haven't studied physics in 5 years and I got a (high) C in it (I got a B in bio and an A in Chemistry, so I'm actually alright at science) and yet I know that is not only wrong but an idiotic claim. You are a liar and a fraud. |
3rd November 2008, 07:16 AM | #252 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 11,466
|
Come on people, it is clear that dropping the building would not cause a spike in the scale.
After all, we have all the seismic recordings from Lamont Doherty showing no spikes whatsoever. |
__________________
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves. - John Muir |
|
3rd November 2008, 10:47 AM | #253 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
|
3rd November 2008, 10:50 AM | #254 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,145
|
Must of been DEW.
|
3rd November 2008, 11:19 AM | #255 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
With the lower structure as flexible, at the contact point, as the lower structure then the most that one can state is that the upper structure would come apart at the same rate as the lower structure. The mass remains the same, the downward movement remains the same, the forces remain the same until one moves towards increasing the amount of complexity one wishes to introduce to the analysis. You claim that the approximations amde by Bazant nullify his work yet you steadfastly refuse to actually show any work that illustrates this.
Your entire arguement comes down to you saying "because I say so".
Quote:
One that immediatly comes to mind is a lead bullet punching through a concrete block or plate of steel. Your assumption is false.
Quote:
Quote:
You are claiming to have refuted a technical paper by a man qualified to write such a technical paper. the only way to refute such a technical paper is to show, demonstrate, illustrate , with valid technical calculations that go beyond the approximations that Bazant made, that the original paper errs. To put it in literary terms Bazant wrote a Pulitzer prize level novel and you wrote a screen play for a children's cartoon. If you are not actually trying to garner fame or fortune by this then you would not be a con man. Congradulations, that only leaves incompetant or delusional as far as I am concerned. |
3rd November 2008, 01:00 PM | #256 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
AA. Immediately after contact local failures develop and they consume energy. Plenty of energy. Just to produce a small fracture in any structural part consumes energy. And there are plenty of fractures. Because no part is rigid. And all avaible energy should have been consumed; as fractures, as friction, etc. Arrest is the only result.
BB. So what happens to the lead bullet? Still flying around? CC. I just make a case for collapse arrest in my papers. It happens everytime and is so common that most people take it for granted. Except Bazant! He invents a new theory based on false assumptions ... just a few days after 9/11. Very suspect in my opinion. DD. You are right - my audience is simple people. So I work for them. |
3rd November 2008, 02:29 PM | #257 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,145
|
|
3rd November 2008, 06:30 PM | #258 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,671
|
People, lets face facts here. Either Heiwa is an exceptional troll, and we're taking the bait, or he truly has something wrong upstairs in which case keeping up this attempt to draw evidence from him is futile.
|
3rd November 2008, 06:50 PM | #259 |
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
|
|
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon |
|
4th November 2008, 03:02 PM | #260 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
more hand waving, more "because-I-say-so" arguement. That might work on children and simple people who don't know any better but you have an audience here that requires you actually prove what you claim by showing the math involved.
Let's see your calculations as to exactly how much energy is dissapated (energy actually never gets 'consumed') by fracturing of both the upper and lower structure. Then tell us what the effect of the mass of the rubble on the lower structure floor spans will be. A ton of gravel will have the same load due to gravity as will a ton of solid(rigid) steel.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I said that I agreed that you may not be a con man, but that still leaves two other choices. I am torn between them, though Moby does make a case for an alternative, that of a practical joker. |
5th November 2008, 07:07 AM | #261 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
AA. Good that you agree that local failures may occur at contact between two non-rigid objects. To calculate the energy required to produce a local failure is fairly easy. Elastic deformation is just force times deformation. Plastic deformation is a little more elaborate; you have to calculate the energy to produce the plastic hinge in the part under consideration. Not too difficult. And finally you must calculate the energy required to produce the fracture that develops in the plastic hinge. It is also straigthforward.
Sometimes the local failure suddenly stops at the end of the fracture in the part = arrest. Or the fracture cuts the part in two pieces ... and then more local failures occur due to the force is now applied to other parts. They will be treated in the same manner. BB. You cannot compare the WTC1 upper block dropping down at low velocity on the lower structure with a AK 47 depleted uranium bullet hitting something. CC. See AA. Yes local failures are always arrested ... at the tip of the many fractures you always find in the structures when destruction is arrested. Fire fighters know this. Always good to make a safety perimeter. Then you can scrutinize the fractures. Checking backwards you find where the failure started and can conclude what initiated it, gravity ... or something else. Pity FBI did not study any fractures in the WTC rubble. Many of them were not caused by gravity, in my opinion. DD. I think I have clearly shown that the Bazant's assumptions are those of a con man. But thank you for your input. It assists to improve my claims. |
5th November 2008, 12:01 PM | #262 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
I do not have to calculate anything, you have to calculate these energies in order to back your claims. I bolded a significant part of your above post. If it is not too difficult then why are you argueing that it is unneccessary instead of doing it? It would remove this discussion from a "yes it is - no it isn't" level to a more objective plane.
Until you do so you are just hand waving and asking us to believe you. I do not buy used cars on that type of information, why should I buy your arguement?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If my input actually ever gets you to attempt to calculate the energies involved to a better approximation than Bazant used I will be satisfied but I am not going to hold my breath waiting for it. |
5th November 2008, 12:55 PM | #263 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,006
|
Tell you what Heiwa, place the scales outside do a jump off your door step, onto the scales, then do a swan dive off your roof onto them see if the difference in kinetic energy alters your mass, and force of impact...
Dare you ? Or do you realise that kinetic energy adds to your load, and the force of impact would therefore be greater ? |
5th November 2008, 12:58 PM | #264 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
It's a pity Bazant does not do any serious calcuations about local failures. He assumes that the rigid upper block impacts - as one rigid unity - on the lower structure ... that behaves like a spring (!?) with spring constant C = 90 GN/m. Assumed by Bazant, the con man!
Hm, that's a very stiff spring. It does not deform at all - unless you put 90 GN on it ... and it deforms 1 m! Springs are normally more flexible. I would estimate that C = 1 GN/m or less ... if WTC1 was a spring, which I doubt. It is easy to check what C of the lower structure actually is. Make a beam model of the lower structure and compress it. If you need a force 90 GN to deform it 1 m, C = 90 GN/m. If you only need a force 1 GN, C = 1 GN/m. If you assume that the lower structure is a solid steel rod 10 m² that only compresses vertically with no transverse deflections, then C = 90 GN/m. If you model that the lower structure consist of 280+ springy, flexible columns that can deflect sideways (between floors) you will get C = 1 GN/m. Such spring will just deform like a bed with children jumping on it. The children bounce. No collapse. Anyway - so a 'spring' with C = 90 GN/m is pretty stiff ... rigid. Like a steel floor. Anything hitting such a spring ... like an upper block ... would get destroyed at once ... unless it was rigid. The local pressures between a lower structure spring with C = 90 GN/m and a rigid upper block would really be enormous. OK - the upper block cannot get damaged ... it is rigid ... and the lower structure does not really deform - C = 90 GN/m, what happens? No local deformations anywhere. No, a shock wave is produced! It goes through the spring at very high speed ... disappears in the ground. No seismic recordings of that, though. And then ... suddenly, the very stiff spring (read lower structure) starts to 'globally collapse' from top to bottom. Bazant has a very strange explanation for that. Floors getting loose, etc. Actually ... all destruction is always sideways (!) at regular intervals - as no upper block is seen any longer. Just look at the videos. Sections of lower structure implodes one after the other from top down. The implosions are associated with a fountain of debris and dust sent sideways ... all the time below and above the imploded sections. Also air jets occur ... well below the real destruction of sections. The air jets are a result of what sets off the implosions. Quite impressive. Many people think it is a global collapse caused by something dropping down ... but they are fooled. Nothing is dropping down. The upper block was the first to implode. I really wonder what energies were required to produce all that destruction, debris, dust and smoke. Gravity? No chance. Gravity is not strong enough. Just jump yourself. Or just drop. Gravity, you know. You or gravity do not globally collapse anything. |
5th November 2008, 01:07 PM | #265 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
|
Come on guys, Heiwa is the smartest person in the world, give him some credit. He is right and the entire engineering community is wrong. Or something like that.
|
5th November 2008, 01:11 PM | #266 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 782
|
Nists paper and Bazants paper on the collapse of the towers are two different scenarios, or am I wrong?
And can someone ask Heiwa exactly were Bazant makes the assumption that the upper block is rigid? |
__________________
L.H 1919 - 1993 R.I.P Unfortunately the 911truth movement web site does not allow any opinions contrary to their own, or I would have presented my views. David Scott - CTBUH Chairman |
|
5th November 2008, 04:01 PM | #267 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Its a pity that you do no calculations whatsoever.
Quote:
Quote:
Quite the contrary. I can indeed fashion a structure that will support me with no problem which if I jump on it, it collapses. In fact I have done this many times, I can stand on an empty pop can without it collapsing but if I merely stomp down on it, not even using all my weight, it crushes down. The more you post the more I have to suspect that you are not an engineer. You obviously cannot comprehend what Bazant is doing or the concepts involved. If you really are an accredited engineer then it looks like you are following in the footsteps of the designers of the Vasa. |
5th November 2008, 10:29 PM | #268 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
Your pop can example is quite good. Now put 10 cans on top of one another taped together and jump on them. The cans now act as spring and dampen your impact. Note that the cans bulge out between tops/bottoms = elastic deformation. Absorbs plenty of energy.
Don't worry about my engineering credentials. They are very good. Quite clear that Bazant is spreading misleading info. |
6th November 2008, 09:12 AM | #269 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
This is not supposed to happen during the Heiwa bathroom scale experiment.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_Gc...eature=related |
6th November 2008, 09:49 AM | #270 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
,,,,,,,,,,,, and still none of those "fairly easy" and "not too difficult" calculations.
Actually, if I tape, or even solder, those 10 cans in line together and if I merely stand on the top of that column it will bend over and buckle. With no lateral support it will fail to hold my weight. Take it up with Euler if you do not believe me. |
6th November 2008, 10:18 AM | #271 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
|
6th November 2008, 10:45 AM | #272 |
Muse
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 510
|
Quote:
|
__________________
Like a toy, the black dinosaur walked towards a Goomba and asked him: "What do Truthy Chain Chomps say when they bark? Twoof! Twoof! Twoof!" *badum pschhh* My 9/11 Crackpot Index |
|
6th November 2008, 03:35 PM | #273 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
You have created a different situation. The 10 can column cannot support a simple load of 90 Kg without buckling. It will buckle in an arc and likely fail by creasing near the center if the bottom can is fixed to the ground.
However if you used three of these columns and laterally connected them I could stand with my entire weight on any single column with no problem because the lateral support would resist the buckling and the column itself can support a lot more compressive load. This is more akin to how the core columns failed after the floor spans were violently removed leaving the columns wioth no lateral support. As I have stated several times now, the mass of the top portion of the towers came down and would have impacted the floor of the next level down. The mass of that upper portion had been designed to be taken by the columns but that mass is no longer on the columns, it is on the floor pan. The floor pan was never designed to transfer that amount of load to the columns let alone the impact forces that would have resulted. The floor pan/truses fail in milliseconds under this load thus removing lateral support betweeen perimeter and core columns. The mass continues down relatively unchanged and moving faster when it impacts the next floor immediatly failing that floor. Now the columns of the lower structure have two levels of no lateral support. Alone these columns could probably stand perhaps 4-5 stories with only a slight bend but they are not sitting there in pristine, and quiet, condition. There are hundreds of tons of material buffeting them. They buckle and snap. Indeed although the trusses and floor pans were crushed, the columns were bent or snapped in relatively long sections. The perimeter columns that were spaced closely together and connected to each other along the plane of the outer wall, did survive in some quite large sections as well. This is essentially what Bazant says. He supplies his calculations to support his model. You also have a model but you supply no mathematical backing for it and we are left to take your say-so. That puts you at the same level of a used car salesman. I will continue to read this thread but will no longer post until you have supplied some mathematical bassis for your claims. |
8th November 2008, 10:44 AM | #274 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
Nice try, jaydeehess, but all nonsense.
Bazant does not provide any calculations: his mass is 75% bigger than actual and his spring constant C of the tower is 140 times (14 000%) bigger than the actual one (if you can talk about a spring constant of a tower?). Using such stupid assumption, plus that the dropping mass is indestructible, he suggests that this mass crushes down 95 floors one after the other by gravity only. Look at the videos, FGS. There is no dropping mass to be seen anywhere. And a dropping mass due to gravity does not eject big chunks of walls in all directions and pulverize the floors to dust. It seems 10 000 times more energy is at work during the destruction than caused by a little low weight, flexible upper part assembled by some columns and a few floors + plenty of air. The upper part should have stopped at once up top after 'impact'. Jumping on a bathroom scale does not destroy the whole house where the scale is located. |
8th November 2008, 01:40 PM | #275 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
Please restudy everything you've been taught about column failure modes and slenderness ratios. Jaydeehess has demonstrated the non-technical basics of the concept. You on the otherhand demostrate no such familiarity despite knowing the fancy terminolgy.
This is a strange criticism coming from you, who declines to provide the math to substantiate your own claims. Hypocrite much? Your logic is that if you cannot see a mass there, then it does not exist. Invalid and irrelevant argument, try again Heresay, is not a valid argument, particularly when you offer no substantiation for your reasoning. Reductive fallacy Underestimating the scale of the section above the impact region? Oversimplifying... Heiwa.... if you're going to use misleading arguments, please try harder... The analogy fails no matter how many goals posts you shift. We're talking about the structural failure within a building using a footprint the size of a soccer field, and the height of a conventional high rise structure in smaller cities. Nothing about the real thing is "small". |
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
8th November 2008, 11:13 PM | #276 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
It seems you haven't read my articles at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm and http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm? All the math to substantiate my claims are there.
The bathroom scale experiment is just demonstrate the same thing more visually ... at no risk. |
9th November 2008, 02:24 AM | #277 |
Muse
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 510
|
|
__________________
Like a toy, the black dinosaur walked towards a Goomba and asked him: "What do Truthy Chain Chomps say when they bark? Twoof! Twoof! Twoof!" *badum pschhh* My 9/11 Crackpot Index |
|
9th November 2008, 08:03 AM | #278 |
Incromulent Logic
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,979
|
The bathroom scale demonstrates nothing for your arguments. According to you it does, but nobody else is convinced or even swayed by this silly comparison.
You seem unwilling to provide mathematical calculations to back up your arguments, therefore you fail in your endeavor here because you have no key ingredient of calculations. |
__________________
Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense.-Me The conspiracist is not merely illogical: he assaults logic.~ Pomeroo |
|
9th November 2008, 08:18 AM | #279 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
Pls, see post #276.
An interesting article how a vertical column behaves in compression is at http://www.ochshorndesign.com/writin...ing/index.html , i.e. it deflects elastically sideways between supports before collapse. If many columns are connected in a tower and supported by horizontal beams this behaviour comes into play. The multi columns tower will deform vertically much more than just due to pure axial compression of the column, i.e. the multi columns tower is more flexible than if all columns are assumed bundled together as a solid rod that can only compress axially. It is therefore I assume in my papers (based on some simple modelling) that the WTC1 tower has a spring constant C = 0.5 GN/m (due to 280 columns (variable cross areas) over 4000 m² supported by 90 floors) and is compressed 1.56 m due to a force F of 0.78 GN and energy input 0.61 GJ (upper part dropping down). Most of that compression is due to the columns bulging out between supports. Such force will not overload the lower structure. The top part should have bounced and stopped up top if it ever dropped. Just like jumping on a bathroom scale. Bazant assumes that C = 70 GN/m (all columns bundled together to a 6 m² rod) and that the tower only compresses axially 0.14 m due to same energy input (no bulging), while the force becomes 9.24 GN, which Bazant says is overload that causes global collapse, i.e. the upper part, rigid, indestructible, punches through everything below. Nice try by a con man! Has nothing to do with reality. |
9th November 2008, 10:47 AM | #280 |
hairy farting brute
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 970
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|