Bazant in a nutshell

[Justin39640]

I'm pretty sure ergo has me on ignore, because I presented two models where the purpose is to understand the underlying mechanism and not recreate real life. I think an electrical schematic is another good example.

We also occasionally create models using Crystal Ball at work, to get at the underlying model of a failure or a faulty process. The model never Exactly recreates a scenario. Sometimes it is also used to predict probable outcomes and establish risk.

He seen it, he knows it. My service manuals are full of models that don't show exactly how things work in reality but are just to help visualize the ideas behind them.

 

[DGM]

It's funny how an anonymous internet poster could rant on this forum about Bazant and the other poster's qualifications.

It's telling also. I've never hesitated to tell people what I do, why would I? I don't base my arguments on it unless it's directly relevant.

For what it's worth, I am an expert in my trade. I've lasted for thirty + years (and the full time guys that work for me are happy about this).

 

[Justin39640]

It's funny how an anonymous internet poster could rant on this forum about Bazant and the other poster's qualifications.

IIRC, Ergo has cornered the market on this for years, usually jumping on with Tony and other known truthers. Hilarious to watch I think.

 

[MileHighMadness]

Source.

GOD

 

[DGM]

For now, I just want to get back to the point that his simplifying assumptions go far beyond where simplifying assumptions should normally go -- writing two days after the event and before any investigation had been conducted -- and seem instead to seek to provide a thorough explanation. There is and was no need for this. There was no need to put "Rapid Communication" at the top of his paper. This wasn't discovery, this was hypothesis. Was he afraid engineers might come to different conclusions? What was the hurry?

Long on the edit I see.

Again, you have no understanding of the purpose of the paper. You still think it was trying to explain the collapse.

BTW: Why won't you answer what you do for work?

 

[LSSBB]

Long on the edit I see.

Again, you have no understanding of the purpose of the paper. You still think it was trying to explain the collapse.

BTW: Why won't you answer what you do for work?

I'm beginning to think he doesn't have an answer for that question.

 

[BasqueArch]

I'm really tired of this moronic argument.

Positing a model that doesn't match reality means that, in the real world, IT DOESN'T *********** WORK. If it doesn't work in the real world (and it wants to) IT IS NOT A VALID MODEL.

In the same way that we don't design make-believe buildings and just hope that they'll stay standing. Maybe 9/11 Beliebers do this: the real world doesn't.

You cannot present a model of something that never happened and pretend it explains something that did happen. Nobody does this. Not in the sciences, not in engineering, not in any profession that requires models be applicable to real life.

Bazant's argument in a nutshell:

"If it fails in the best possible scenario for it not to fail, then it must fail in all possible scenarios.

"It would fail in the best possible scenario for it not to fail.

"Therefore, it must fail in all possible scenarios."

Ergo's argument:

"The best possible scenario for it not to fail that Bazant proposed doesn't match what happened in reality. Therefore it is fraud."

It sounds silly, doesn't it?

Please cite where he makes these comments or conveys this meaning in the paper referenced.

The best possible scenario for the buildings not to globally collapse was reality. Bazant's scenario was fantasy.

It's OK. I'm just now realizing why bedunkers think Bazant's is a model of reality.

To argue further on this path would get into discussions that have occurred countless times here and elsewhere. It also gets complicated for this discussion because not only does his model not represent what happened, but it's also not workable in any reality based on Newtonian physics, as others have already pointed out (and are much better equipped to argue than I am.)

For now, I just want to get back to the point that his simplifying assumptions go far beyond where simplifying assumptions should normally go -- writing two days after the event and before any investigation had been conducted -- and seem instead to seek to provide a thorough explanation. There is and was no need for this. There was no need to put "Rapid Communication" at the top of his paper. This wasn't discovery, this was hypothesis. Was he afraid engineers might come to different conclusions? What was the hurry?

Why the Bazant global collapse model is a valid model applied to the TT's reality:

“For our purpose, we may assume that all the impact forces go
into the columns and are distributed among them equally. Un-
likely though such a distribution may be, it is nevertheless the
most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the
building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest. If the
building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact
forces, it would fail under any other distribution.” – Bazant

The building (WTC1) was found to fail under the most optimistic uniform distribution of the impact forces onto the columns (even by halving the weight of the upper section) and therefore would fail under any other distribution of the impact forces.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

 

[DGM]

To argue further on this path would get into discussions that have occurred countless times here and elsewhere. It also gets complicated for this discussion because not only does his model not represent what happened, but it's also not workable in any reality based on Newtonian physics, as others have already pointed out (and are much better equipped to argue than I am.)

OK, we'll skip the nuts and bolts. Can you at least explain how you came to believe the bold to be fact?

My study of physics goes back to high-school. I can't spot the problem but I feel I have a decent grasp. I'm not asking to argue, just explain the points of law that were violated, with a brief explanation of how, to the best of you're understanding.

Personally, I don't care what you do for a living. I figured, you asked me, I answered, you could do the same. Just me being reasonable.

 

[pgimeno]

Fair enough, but it still begs the question..why would you put your name and reputation on the line that early when there has been zero investigation done. You're taking a large leap of faith there.

If you read the first paper (the one that is just one page and a bit), you will see this in the introduction:

[Bazant and Zhou] offer the following as a likely scenario of the failure.

I fail to see how explaining a scenario they consider likely, would put their name and reputation on the line.

 

[Spanx]

I'm really tired of this moronic argument.

Are you sure about that ?

 

[pgimeno]

Bazant's argument in a nutshell:

"If it fails in the best possible scenario for it not to fail, then it must fail in all possible scenarios.

"It would fail in the best possible scenario for it not to fail.

"Therefore, it must fail in all possible scenarios."

Please cite where he makes these comments or conveys this meaning in the paper referenced.

You mean in the SIAM News paper? Sure, let me explain to you (once more - I think we've been over this many times). Quote from the article:

The vertical impact of the upper part falling onto the lower part generates vertical loads much higher than the load capacity in the columns of the underlying floor (stage 4), even if these columns have not been heated.
​

That's the most optimistic collapse arrest scenario: that the columns, which are the elements best suited for arresting the collapse (other than load-bearing walls which the WTC didn't have) would be the ones absorbing the impact. Bazant clarifies that in the subsequent, peer-reviewed this time, paper published in JEM, as quoted above by BasqueArch.

In reality, however, as FEMA later explained, the floors pancaked, and the only elements that were there to try to resist the collapse were the joints between the floors and the columns. They are FAR weaker than the columns themselves, therefore even more unlikely to arrest the collapse than the columns that Bazant used in his model.

The best possible scenario for the buildings not to globally collapse was reality. Bazant's scenario was fantasy.

Hogwash. The buildings did globally suffer a pancake collapse. Bazant's scenario was more favorable to collapse arrest than what happened in reality.

 

[theprestige]

Why was an energy analysis and hypothetical collapse explanation needed two days after the event?

Are you seriously confused about why a structural engineer might see a novel structural failure, begin working out the details, and share his work with others for discussion and feedback?

 

[tsig]

It's OK. I'm just now realizing why bedunkers think Bazant's is a model of reality.

To argue further on this path would get into discussions that have occurred countless times here and elsewhere. It also gets complicated for this discussion because not only does his model not represent what happened, but it's also not workable in any reality based on Newtonian physics, as others have already pointed out (and are much better equipped to argue than I am.)

For now, I just want to get back to the point that his simplifying assumptions go far beyond where simplifying assumptions should normally go -- writing two days after the event and before any investigation had been conducted -- and seem instead to seek to provide a thorough explanation. There is and was no need for this. There was no need to put "Rapid Communication" at the top of his paper. This wasn't discovery, this was hypothesis. Was he afraid engineers might come to different conclusions? What was the hurry?

Your main complaint is he did it too quick?

 

[beachnut]

It's OK. I'm just now realizing why bedunkers think Bazant's is a model of reality.

It is model, you think bedunkers, aka rational thinkers made a mistake. You are wrong. It takes math to understand Bazant.

To argue further on this path would get into discussions that have occurred countless times here and elsewhere. It also gets complicated for this discussion because not only does his model not represent what happened, but it's also not workable in any reality based on Newtonian physics, as others have already pointed out (and are much better equipped to argue than I am.)

His model is based on real math and physics, unlike your fantasy version of 911. You are wrong.

For now, I just want to get back to the point that his simplifying assumptions go far beyond where simplifying assumptions should normally go -- writing two days after the event and before any investigation had been conducted -- and seem instead to seek to provide a thorough explanation. There is and was no need for this. There was no need to put "Rapid Communication" at the top of his paper. This wasn't discovery, this was hypothesis. Was he afraid engineers might come to different conclusions? What was the hurry?

Sorry, Bazant can do in minutes what 911 truth can't; understand how it is possible for the WTC to collapse from damage seen. Bazant takes minutes, not days, minutes; 911 truth takes infinite time. 911 truth never will figure out 911, Bazant did it minutes. Like the Passengers on Flight 93, figured out 911 in minutes. Why can't 911 truth?

 

[Justin39640]

Your main complaint is he did it too quick?

Of course! He did it quick which means he's a shill working for the Gov't.

 

[NoahFence]

It is model, you think bedunkers, aka rational thinkers made a mistake. You are wrong. It takes math to understand Bazant.


His model is based on real math and physics, unlike your fantasy version of 911. You are wrong.



Sorry, Bazant can do in minutes what 911 truth can't; understand how it is possible for the WTC to collapse from damage seen. Bazant takes minutes, not days, minutes; 911 truth takes infinite time. 911 truth never will figure out 911, Bazant did it minutes. Like the Passengers on Flight 93, figured out 911 in minutes. Why can't 911 truth?

For chrissake, i'm a PRINTER and I knew how they collapsed before they even hit the ground.

 

[twinstead]

For chrissake, i'm a PRINTER and I knew how they collapsed before they even hit the ground.

I'm a Taurus. What's your sign?

 

[Oz1976]

What is his experience with steel-framed highrises?

His entry into the debate was entirely voluntary. He is hardly the world's expert on structural steel or highrise design.

Oh you're really going to use this? Name one person on A&E911T's list that has "experience with steel-framed highrises". You're sucha hypocrite.

Long on the edit I see.

Again, you have no understanding of the purpose of the paper. You still think it was trying to explain the collapse.

BTW: Why won't you answer what you do for work?

He's never going to answer you, as nearly every truther on this site never answers that question. Too scared to reveal they're just talking out of their backside from the comforts of a subterranean dwelling within their parental residence.

 

[Dog Town]

Your main complaint is he did it too quick?

That, and it didn't match the observed! Which explains the complaint.

The complainer, has no clue!

 

[ergo]

In reality, however, as FEMA later explained, the floors pancaked, and the only elements that were there to try to resist the collapse were the joints between the floors and the columns. They are FAR weaker than the columns themselves, therefore even more unlikely to arrest the collapse than the columns that Bazant used in his model. .

Oh, they did pancake? I see.

So, if FEMA already identified the correct collapse progression mechanism (and Bazant's was shown to be not only wrong but irrelevant) why did NIST bother with a further investigation?