ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


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.
Reply
Old 24th July 2015, 09:45 AM   #41
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,350
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Here is the reasoning in outline - a series of assertions of fact which logically follow each other:

A) Bazant (and Zhou) assumed that the falling "Top Block" landed with columns aligned. ( Supplementary fact - not needed for this argument - It was a valid assumption for the limit case argument which Bazant made.)

B) MacQueen and Szamboti in "Missing Jolt" assumed that the Bazant "fall onto and impact" assumed scenario actually applied to the real event;

C) Therefore they postulated that there should have been a "jolt" caused by the impact.
[...]

Since the logic is a series of assertions of fact which are ANDed - to rebut my argument prove ANY step wrong in fact OR disprove the sequential relationship.
As I said above, after a more careful examination of the paper the highlighted is false. You got the sequence wrong: the authors postulate that a jolt should be necessary to do the work of destruction (which is correct), and then try to lean on B&Z/NIST to justify it. Basing your criticism on the absence of a simultaneous impact of all columns is therefore a strawman.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2015, 09:49 AM   #42
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,350
delete
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

Last edited by pgimeno; 24th July 2015 at 09:51 AM.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2015, 09:53 AM   #43
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,820
I truly enjoy all the effort incompetents who apparently lack any functional knowledge of physics and it's applications and so try to make one thing they sort of know, kind of, to
be a way determine that truth is wrong even though it clearly is not. On the other hand, it keeps them out of other types of mischief.!!!!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2015, 01:56 PM   #44
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,792
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
oops. Red face department

I slipped in editing and wrongly attributed these three quotes to pgimeno in my post #32.
Tis quite alright...

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
I fully comprehend that the details may not be significant for you and for your purposes. pgimeno is trying to understand and explain those details so they are important to him for his purposes.
Not just for my purposes, but in general I barely even understand how there's conflict between your both's points. As far as I'm reading, the disagreement belies in deep details that have negligible effect on the overall... The way I read it, is - as I've said already - the jolts were there... they happened irrespective of how the buildings failed. The argument across all scales seems to be "we know the sky is blue, but what shade of blue is it? turquoise or navy blue?"

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
His recent post shows that he is not "off base" for the purposes of the OP of this thread. He agrees that Szamboti had the wrong starting point. So for purposes of this thread's OP the differences are of details which may not be important.
Agreed. My "off base" remark has to do with detail level. I've made this case on Szambotis remarks in the past. I won't pressure you guys to do what "I" think is appropriate any further. I'm just commentating on it... no intent to argue

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
He is questioning details in the "Starting to fall" region. I have asserted that there cannot be columns in line in the "Falling" region.

Then he shows that he does understand the sequence with this:

Of course I am "fast forwarding" - as I have said many times - it is a known definable point where all the column and are missing. << That assertion being the one pgimeno has been denying when I make it but agrees now when he states it. OK so lets move on.
This is again a detail

1) The fact that my assertion is correct - whether "fast forwarded" or not - proves the point that T Sz's starting assumption was wrong because - as T Sz and Chandler showed - there was no "big Jolt" and Szamboti was looking for the "big Jolt" of column on column impact.

(Remember he wanted to prove that bits of column had been removed by CD. He wasn't looking for "mini jolts" - they would not help his CD claim.)

2) And in my comprehensive full sequence explanations I have discussed the ":Starting to fall" stage which pgimeno's buckling column fits. If pgimeno wants to discuss the "how it started to fall" mechanisms this Georgio thread may not be appropriate. pgimeno can either go to my "Explanation for Jango" thread - the sequence and most of the key issues are framed out there - OR start another thread. We risk derailing here IMO.
Fair enough. I've also been meaning to do some graphics for WTC 1 which would help further that aspect of the discussion. Just have been too busy with work and reluctant to get back into 9/11 discussions too much to do it. I made the graphic he used for WTC 2 in ~2009, and it was good for clearly illustrating things for WTC 1 - while understanding it had a number of differences that affected visible magnitude.
__________________
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2015, 02:52 PM   #45
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,651
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
As I said above, after a more careful examination of the paper the highlighted is false. You got the sequence wrong: the authors postulate that a jolt should be necessary to do the work of destruction (which is correct), and then try to lean on B&Z/NIST to justify it. Basing your criticism on the absence of a simultaneous impact of all columns is therefore a strawman.
Their problem is with the magnitude of the "jolt". There's no reason to assume column on column impact once the floors have failed. At that point the outer columns are no longer fixed and there is no reason to expect the ends to meet. Floor failure prior to exterior column failure is well documented. This is the part FEMA got right when they described the "pancake failure" (It's also the same as the later named ROOSD*).

They did observe "jolts"(seen in the data), they just claim they are not of sufficient magnitude to allow for total collapse. This is where they use the Bazant model. Their premise of "jolt" magnitude to facilitate collapse is based only on the model and not observed and documented building behavior.


* I'm not a big fan of the term because it doesn't really carry over to other structures, it a one off (two actually).
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 24th July 2015 at 03:00 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2015, 03:06 PM   #46
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Time to Call a Halt to this Ongoing Mental Gymnastics

pgimeno acknowledges that Georgio's OP statement is:

Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
I'm pretty convinced that there is no reason to expect a jolt in the situation present on 9/11.
I understand Georgio's position - he was agreeing with me - and my explanation was premised on the "Big Jolt" I understand T Szamboti was originally looking for.

pgimeno disagrees with the OP postulating lesser jolts. I understand his position.

Let's see if Georgio has any interest in that detailed discussion.

@pgimeno - for the record - Do you agree that T Sz's starting assumptions(s) was (were) wrong?

I will not be pursuing the other aspects of debate at this stage.
ozeco41 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2015, 03:08 PM   #47
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
Tis quite alright...
I was pressed for time - needed to get to work - didn't read the post AFTER it was posted - that is the time when the errors become obvious to me. I never see them before I post them. That's why many of my posts get edited.
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
Not just for my purposes, but in general I barely even understand how there's conflict between your both's points.
I'm sure many members will be in the same situation - that is why I intend to call a halt to the discussion - I can keep untangling confusions and clarifying but the cyclic "clarify >> re-impose confusion" can go on indefinitely with many members like yourself saying "WTF is this about" And it is not helping Georgio since - at this stage we are agreed hat he is correct on the OP BUT our reasons differ.
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
As far as I'm reading, the disagreement belies in deep details that have negligible effect on the overall...
Correct. The argument is about "what caused the jolts" which begs the question of "big jolt" versus "lots of little jolts" - which is not relevant to Georgio's expressed OP position.
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
The way I read it, is - as I've said already - the jolts were there... they happened irrespective of how the buildings failed. The argument across all scales seems to be "we know the sky is blue, but what shade of blue is it? turquoise or navy blue?"
True. But "why is the sky blue?" and "Why are their shades of blue?" are legitimate questions for those who are interested in the causes of blueness. And boring detail for those who are not interested.
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
Agreed. My "off base" remark has to do with detail level. I've made this case on Szambotis remarks in the past. I won't pressure you guys to do what "I" think is appropriate any further. I'm just commentating on it... no intent to argue
Fully understood. Szamboti's "arguments" have multiple flaws - could write a book on them. This thread is only concerned with one of them. Still it is a favourite them of mine. You may have seen my comment made many times over the years - ALL of Szamboti's papers and claims from "Engineering Reality" published in 2007 have a fatal false starting point. That's not true now - the Sz. Sz and J paper is an exception. I suspect that the other ASz (Szuladzinski) kept Tony on the rails for that paper.
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
Fair enough. I've also been meaning to do some graphics for WTC 1 which would help further that aspect of the discussion. Just have been too busy with work and reluctant to get back into 9/11 discussions too much to do it. I made the graphic he used for WTC 2 in ~2009, and it was good for clearly illustrating things for WTC 1 - while understanding it had a number of differences that affected visible magnitude.
I'm lazy with graphics - not my game. But I used this one derived from Achimspok's work in recent posts here and on DP a year or so back:

And this YouTube clip of the motion.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

It is WTC2 and - as you say - the factors are magnified.

But the key elements remain the same and the two pivotal stages:
A) Cascading failure which starts the "Top Block" heading downwards and it falls/drops/gets closer to the ground bodily (people get fussed about words when the concept is what matters );
B)
C) Progression driven by stripping down of the open office floor space joists which I call ROOSD for convenience but use of that label sends Bazantophile members into frenzies.

Note that I left "B)" blank? I used to insert a "Transition" stage - I now understand that it isn't needed - it is part of "A)" - that first Image shows why - but it is a "detail" so I won't bore you.
ozeco41 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2015, 03:22 PM   #48
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Their problem is with the magnitude of the "jolt". There's no reason to assume column on column impact once the floors have failed. At that point the outer columns are no longer fixed and there is no reason to expect the ends to meet. Floor failure prior to exterior column failure is well documented. This is the part FEMA got right when they described the "pancake failure" (It's also the same as the later named ROOSD*).

They did observe "jolts"(seen in the data), they just claim they are not of sufficient magnitude to allow for total collapse. This is where they use the Bazant model. Their premise of "jolt" magnitude to facilitate collapse is based only on the model and not observed and documented building behavior.

Thank you sir.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
* I'm not a big fan of the term because it doesn't really carry over to other structures, it a one off (two actually).
Technically it falls short because it is only one of the three mechanisms. Or sometimes two - M_T himself varies his meaning as to whether it refers to the office space pancaking cascade ALONE or if it includes Perimeter Column Peel Off.

I've been using "Three Mechanisms" as my preferred label for several years. BUT I lost out in marketing because "Three Mechs" ain't anywhere near as "market attention getting" as ROOSD. Add in the complicated mental gymnastics of "Major Tom must be wrong because he posts obnoxious comments AND he is a truther" ...well you know the distractions that causes.

Part of the history is interesting - frustrating. Because the contention was between misapplied Bazantian column crushing versus the real events column peel off - the discussion focus was only on office space and perimeter. It wasn't till what?? 2010? that I bothered to include the core in my explanation. Up 'til then - 2007-9-9 and mostly on other forums - I took it that core strip down was as obvious as office space strip down so no need to explain. I was tactically WRONG but years too late.
ozeco41 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2015, 03:58 PM   #49
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,651
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post

Technically it falls short because it is only one of the three mechanisms.
True. My problem with it is it doesn't carry over to other structures better than the term "cascade failure". It's specific to two structures only. It describes one event, so does "pancake".

FWIW: we're now off topic.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2015, 04:48 PM   #50
Georgio
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 475
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Let's see if Georgio has any interest in that detailed discussion.
Speaking personally, I don't really have any interest in pursuing any subject on this forum further than answering the question, 'Is that evidence for controlled demolition on 9/11?'. From what I've read I'm 100% convinced that the 'Missing Jolt' paper is NOT evidence for controlled demolition.

I'm fine with the discussion remaining quite fluid in this thread. I wouldn't call anything posted so far off-topic because it all informs the interpretation of the validity of the starting assumptions of 'Missing Jolt'.
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2015, 05:10 PM   #51
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
True. My problem with it is it doesn't carry over to other structures better than the term "cascade failure". It's specific to two structures only. It describes one event, so does "pancake".
So true. It is specific - despite certain several times repeated bits of explicit linguistic gymnastics and implicit engineering nonsense that the collapses were merely just another progression.

I'll leave for you to consider the analogy but I'm glad we have names for apples and bananas - somehow the assertion that we don't need a distinguishing name because they are both "fruit" leaves me cold. And the botanical implication that apples and bananas are identical....

I still wish I had thought of an "eye catching" mnemonic before "ROOSD" - I may have got away with it in 2008-9 before I blotted my copybook by agreeing with some truthers on the bits they got right. That - agreeing with truthers when they are right - is a crime nearly as serious as lèse majesté when I dare to identify the bits Bazant got wrong.



Originally Posted by DGM View Post
FWIW: we're now off topic.
I thought I was the only one claiming that

Last edited by ozeco41; 24th July 2015 at 05:23 PM.
ozeco41 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2015, 05:16 PM   #52
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
Speaking personally, I don't really have any interest in pursuing any subject on this forum further than answering the question, 'Is that evidence for controlled demolition on 9/11?'. From what I've read I'm 100% convinced that the 'Missing Jolt' paper is NOT evidence for controlled demolition.
Thanks Georgio. Explicitly and concisely stated.

Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
I'm fine with the discussion remaining quite fluid in this thread. I wouldn't call anything posted so far off-topic because it all informs the interpretation of the validity of the starting assumptions of 'Missing Jolt'.
Understood. I have no difficulty with the WIDTH of discussion - provided posts follow current discussion without unacknowledged or denied changes of topic focus.

Last edited by ozeco41; 24th July 2015 at 05:23 PM.
ozeco41 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2015, 12:36 PM   #53
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,792
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
I got some interesting answers as to what would cause the misalignment, but none was definitive. Grizzly Bear showed with a quite clear graphic how Bazant's explanation of how the top rotated around its centre of gravity applied to the early moments of the collapse of WTC2:

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...tionBazant.png (Bazant and Zhou 2002, p.5)

http://i.imgur.com/GWpX5v9.png (image posted by Grizzly)

The reason for that rotation would be torque induced by the start of the fall of one side (fig. 4b). That' s convincing for the South tower, but leaves the case of the misalignment for the North tower unexplained, because the block was substantially smaller, needing more rotation for the misalignment to happen.
Belated but here's from a graphic I worked on back in February, with some markups:



Not very pretty but it illustrates the difference being hilighted between T1 and T2
__________________
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2015, 03:50 PM   #54
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
If you want to start a "Worst Graphics" competition - this was my first ever effort - November 2007 - trying to explain the "progression stage" for Twin towers BEFORE I had heard of Bazant and before "ROOSD" was published. Rebutting Chandler videos and claims of "squibs".



It was on another forum - not JREF - and not knowing about Bazant gave me an advantage - didn't ever fall into the confusion resulting from Bazant's work. It was my second week of Internet posting and I had already decided to never rely on authorities like FEMA or NIST - too much confusion between "Explain what actually happened" and "Was NIST right or wrong?"

Only got my thinking on "Limits of Applicability of Bazant" clear through participating in a challenging thread OPed by pgimeno here on JREF as it was then - 2010.

Situation hasn't changed much and I'm still no better with the graphics
ozeco41 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2015, 08:49 AM   #55
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,350
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
@pgimeno - for the record - Do you agree that T Sz's starting assumptions(s) was (were) wrong?

I will not be pursuing the other aspects of debate at this stage.
After my vacation I have re-read the paper with fresh eyes, and I have come to the conclusion that even though it's open to interpretations, the most direct one is that the starting assumption is wrong. The key to the interpretation is this section:
The Necessary Jolt:

As Bazant has said, when the top part fell and struck the stories beneath it, there had to be a powerful jolt. While a jolt entails acceleration of the impacted object it requires deceleration of the impacting object. Even a hammer hitting a nail decelerates, and if the hammer is striking a strong, rigid body fixed to the earth its deceleration will be abrupt and dramatic.

Although NIST does not explicitly speak, like Bazant, of a "jolt", and may therefore be thought to evade this paper's refutation, it is impossible for NIST to escape the implications of its own assertions. The NIST report speaks of a strong, rigid structure (the upper structure or rigid block) falling freely onto another strong, rigid structure (the intact part of the building below the damaged area): the jolt cannot be avoided. [14]

This was a necessary jolt. Without it the required work could not have been done.
(p.3) (cursive in original, highlighting mine).

This is talking about a rigid block falling. If the top were a rigid block then a big jolt would be expected. However, the highlighted leaves it open to the interpretation that a jolt is expected solely because without it, the work could not be done, as it seems to be the physical principle in which the expectation of a jolt is based. Now I'm inclined to disregard this interpretation, though, due to the emphasis on blocks in the rest of the paper, and even the forced attempt to put in NIST's mouth the block paradigm.

So, to sum up, the starting assumption of the paper The Missing Jolt is wrong.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2015, 02:26 AM   #56
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
After my vacation I have re-read the paper with fresh eyes, and I have come to the conclusion that even though it's open to interpretations, the most direct one is that the starting assumption is wrong.
Agreed.

Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
The key to the interpretation is this section:
Maybe. The critical process is how it is interpreted. And T Sz twists the interpretation to suit his own predefined goal - i.e. there was CD.

...and remember he is not accurately representing Bazant - he is reading it from his own false perspective. He may not be deliberately dishonest but his interpretation is wrong.

Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
The Necessary Jolt:

As Bazant has said, when the top part fell and struck the stories beneath it, there had to be a powerful jolt. << Which is Bazant's legitimate statement given that Bazant's assumptions were valid for the purpose of a "limit case". They are not legit for Tony's misuse of them wrongly applied to the real event.
While a jolt entails acceleration of the impacted object it requires deceleration of the impacting object. Even a hammer hitting a nail decelerates, and if the hammer is striking a strong, rigid body fixed to the earth its deceleration will be abrupt and dramatic. << Truisms to fool the gullible. SOP for T Szamboti. Again whether he knows it or not. My opinion is that he is grossly ignorant of reasoned argument in physics and not simply a deliberately dishonest deceiver.

Although NIST does not explicitly speak, like Bazant, of a "jolt", and may therefore be thought to evade this paper's refutation, it is impossible for NIST to escape the implications of its own assertions. The NIST report speaks of a strong, rigid structure (the upper structure or rigid block) falling freely onto another strong, rigid structure (the intact part of the building below the damaged area): the jolt cannot be avoided. [14] << He is "mixing and matching" - Bazant was using a legitimate but false scenario to prove a limit case. NIST is considering the real event. The two - fantasy for a purpose AND real event CANNOT be "mixed and matched" this way.

This was a necessary jolt. Without it the required work could not have been done. << Work is a derail truism. The issues are (a) defining the actual mechanism of the real event and (b) differentiating it from the fantasy event of Bazant's B&Z paper. At this stage the fact that Bazant went off the rails in later papers is not relevant.
(p.3) (cursive in original, highlighting mine).

This is talking about a rigid block falling. If the top were a rigid block then a big jolt would be expected. << You are picking the wrong aspect as the key. The critical error is in "falling" - not "rigid block"
However, the highlighted leaves it open to the interpretation that a jolt is expected solely because without it, the work could not be done, as it seems to be the physical principle in which the expectation of a jolt is based. << Not so - it is a side track Now I'm inclined to disregard this interpretation, << Good move though, due to the emphasis on blocks in the rest of the paper, and even the forced attempt to put in NIST's mouth the block paradigm. << Yes HOWEVER remember the false premise is "falling" NOT "rigid blocks"

So, to sum up, the starting assumption of the paper The Missing Jolt is wrong. <<Correct conclusion. And I only asked for that point. We can address the confusion of your supporting reasons separately if you wish.

Last edited by ozeco41; 2nd September 2015 at 02:28 AM.
ozeco41 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2015, 04:30 AM   #57
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,285
Is "rigid blocks" a true premise for the real event?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2015, 05:07 AM   #58
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,866
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Is "rigid blocks" a true premise for the real event?
This depends on the structure. One a structure breaks into smaller sections... each section may "hold together" and if is dropping as a "free body...there would not likely be forces enough to change it from a rigid "body".

For example...

If a truss bridge collapses from say a joint failure... it's certainly possible for large sections of the bridge to drop as "rigid bodies"... and then break apart upon impact with the ground... The initial failure may sever it into separate integrated structures.

It conceivable that the top section of a building could remain integrated and rigid and drop... if all the supports for it were removed simultaneously.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2015, 07:26 AM   #59
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Is "rigid blocks" a true premise for the real event?
No.

There are actually two conflicting scenarios implicit in the discussion:

The "fantasy" scenario adopted by Bazant and misapplied by Szamboti. Bazant's paper (B&Z 2001/2) sought to demonstrate a limit case for "progression" - briefly stated it said "if the Top Block was descending and impacted the lower tower the energy was more than enough to collapse the lower tower - crushing it by buckling into failure all the columns." The only thing needed for that was a starting mechanism of "Top Block" falling which was observed reality - Bazant did not pretend any mechanism for how it started moving. Only that it did move.

So Bazant's legitimate "limit case" for progression was premised on getting started by undefined means. His focus was on the energy required for column crushing progression however it started. Szamboti wanted it falling through a gap - the gap created by CD removal of column sections. So one of the errors fatal to "Missing Jolt" is that its starting premise is the assumed conclusion Tony wanted - gaps in columns which the "Top Block" "falls" through and he reasons round in a circle to "prove" his assumption. It never happened that way as I may have said once or twice. Many debunkers still think it did happen that way.

In that scenario "rigid block" could be interpreted as literally rigid whilst reality was that it would have all the necessarily elastic characteristics of a structural frame. "Integral elastic structure" would be more accurate than "rigid" BUT there is no need to be pedantic about which it was because the scenario was a fantasy. Legitimate for Bazant's purpose. Illegitimate when misapplied by Szamboti. Sadly many of our debunkers are still thinking in the Szamboti model - that is the source of all the controversy and denialism directed at my explanations over the past 5 or so years.

So much for the fantasy scenario.

The "real event" scenario was significantly different and the difference is what I and others have tried to explain in rebuttal of those followers of Szamboti and pseudo followers of Bazant.

What did happen in the real event was progressive column by column sequenced cascading failure of columns. The structure above the failing zone remained elastically intact and the elasticity was a key requirement for the load redistribution. It could not work with a rigid "Top Block" and it is not possible that the Top Block could be literally rigid.

To fully explain the 3D mechanism is a complex challenge - the one I undertook in the "Explain For Jango" thread which legitimately simplified for lay person consumption the full range of complexities. I barely scratched the surface of the 3D realities of load redistribution. The exact sequencing can never be known anyway.

So if you wil accept "No" as the answer to your question I'll leave it there. I can explore further detail but it gets complicated to put in words, hard to show in pictures and the explanation can never be specific - only generic principles because we do not and cannot know the actual sequencing...

Last edited by ozeco41; 2nd September 2015 at 07:59 AM. Reason: spelling typos
ozeco41 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2015, 01:29 PM   #60
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
@Oystein
Further to the above post there may be a simpler way of explaining why rigid blocks is not a valid premise - and more important IMO - why any form of "block" interpretation - rigid or elastic - can trap people into following the Szamboti misunderstanding of the event.

The actual failure interface between the Top Block and the lower tower was NOT "block like" for this reason:

The failure was member by member and the integral blocks of structure did not operate to restrain the geometric location of each column into its block location. Each failing column in failing individually overcame whatever was restraining it in geometric precise location in the "Block". Recall my advice in the "Jango Explanation" thread to consider the mechanism from the perspective of the definable truth of what must have happened to each individual column THEN add them up.

The zone of failure was comprised of many columns individually failing and the mechnaism of each column failure overcame any locking to location which would result from block geometry.

So consider the collapse as a number of individual column failures each of which MUST have failed with the block structure above moving closer to the structure below.

The space got less THEREFORE the ends of column missed.

And that is the point where Szamboti and his loyal followers lose the plot.

The statement is axiomatic true. The ends have missed or are progressing in a way where they will inevitably miss.

That axiomatic truth conflicts directly with the Szamboti explanations where he relies on things like tilt and the presumed unmovable location of every column to show that the geometry would not allow "missing". Szamboti then goes on to support the "cannot miss" assertion by claiming "all columns missing would require a massive horizontal force to move the Top Block" horizontally". False logic and classic Szamboti - his premise is wrong - two of them in that case. Nothing says that all columns have to miss in the same uniform direction is one error. And he starts by assuming what he wants to prove.

FACT is the Top Block(s) moved downwards reducing the space between upper structure and lower and that means the column ends bypassed. And each one individually had whatever force was needed to move its ends out of alignment because the ends must be missing because the top structure moved downwards.

There have been dozens of bits of mental gymnastics to avoid that simple (or not so simple ) truth in de facto support of Szamboti.

Put very bluntly my explanation starts from a known truth and progresses through steps of reasoned logic which are demonstrably true.

The Szamboti version starts with a false presumption and much debunker side confusion occur when they follow Szamboti style reasoning blindly accepting the false assumptions.

Last edited by ozeco41; 2nd September 2015 at 01:38 PM.
ozeco41 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2015, 02:31 PM   #61
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,285
Quote:
...the false premise is "falling" NOT "rigid blocks"
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Is "rigid blocks" a true premise for the real event?
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
No.
[snipped lots of explanation - thx for that]
So if you wil accept "No" as the answer to your question I'll leave it there. I can explore further detail ...
Not necessary.
I asked in response to your "the false premise is ... NOT "rigid blocks"".

I realize you also wrote, a bit earlier in the same post: "You are picking the wrong aspect as the key. The critical error is in "falling" - not "rigid block"".
Just wanted to make sure where you really stand.
"Rigid block" is false, but "falling" is more false, is what you say, right?
Not sure if I go along.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2015, 06:30 PM   #62
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
..."Rigid block" is false, but "falling" is more false, is what you say, right?...
Yes. Heres why:

The Bazant/Szamboti scenario has a block "falling" onto lower tower.

The real scenario was not "falling" it was "letting down as columns buckled" NOT "dropping though space."

Understanding the sequential cascade of columns letting down is the central feature of the real event as opposed to the falling or dropping of the Bazant/Szamboti fantasy.

Sure it was fast but it was still a sequenced let down and failure to comprehend the difference is the main cause of contention/confusion.

So "falling" is the main falsehood and relative to that the issue of "rigid" versus "elastic framework" is moot. It didn't fall so whether it was rigid or not is not relevant to that point.

That ends the answer to your specific question.

CAUTION Below this line I dig deeper into the complexities... Be Warned.
************************************************** *************

THEN comes the next stage of explanation which says that the interface between whatever block was moving down - not "falling" was NOT a block to block interface. It was a collection of individual structural element contacts. The individual elements no longer constrained to remain in their original locations defined to inches or fractions by original geometry of the structural frame. Comprehend that aspect and it will start to become clearer to you why all the debate over axial contact is silly. Both sides wrong. (1) There never was an initial impact in axial context - my first point above. And (2) the geometry of the frame wasn't holding the members in their original spatial relationships - whether or not here was impacting contact. AND (3) the opportunity for axial contact has already passed. Hence my references to "sequence errors" or "anachronisms" going back several years. That is three factors each fatal to the Bazant/Szamboti "model".

THEN to go further we need to comprehend that an elastic block framework backing up the interfacing elements (AKA above for Top Block - below for lower tower) is essential to understanding the dynamics of load redistribution. That still integral frame is what re-distributes the loads to cause further columns to fail in the cascading sequence. Without (a) A frame which (b) was elastic (AKA if if the frame was rigid) there could not be load redistribution - it becomes an "all or nothing" scenario. But the integral holding together structural framework was not at the actual interface between Top Block and lower tower.

AND "rigid" is not possible anyway so no point chasing understanding of something that cannot be.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
...Not sure if I go along.
The explanation process may work better if I make some broad bare assertions THEN you ask questions where the issues or details are not clear.


PS A bit of apology for the duplication - some overlap between my successive posts. But I wanted to keep each post reasonably self sufficient.

Last edited by ozeco41; 2nd September 2015 at 08:12 PM.
ozeco41 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:01 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.