Bazant in a nutshell

[lexicon008]

You're setting a pretty high bar there my friend. Certainly no one predicted how fast the building would fall, how big the plume would be, etc. However... Going from memory, I do recall that the guys in the police helicopters reported an imminent collapse as they saw what was happening at the top of one of the Towers. Then there was the engineer who predicted the eventual collapse of Building 7 about 5 hours before it happened (said it would take about 5 hours). Then there was the fire chief who ordered the firefighters to evacuate the towers because it was looking unsound (falling plaster etc). And there was also the firemana who talkeed to BBC and said look at Building 7, how it's leaning, it ain't gonna last. And Chief Nigro who decided Building 7 was unstable and told firefighters to pull back to prevenmt further loss of life. These are just off the top of my head.

However, I think there is some truth to the claim that many engineers etc were pretty flummoxed by the whole thing. It had never happened before and, going from memory again, some experts did say they didn't understand how it all happened.

This i think is the issue at hand for most people who question the official story. Was there going to be a collapse..partial?..sure..were people expecting or could it have been expected that a total collapse would occur...how could they? There was no example of a non demolition complete collapse of a steel framed high rise structure prior to 911. Had they expected it to collapse..if it was truly inevitable from the time the impacts happened..then no command structure would knowingly put their command post right inside ground zero. That would be foolish and quite frankly negligent. They got caught completely off guard or weren't told that "Hey you might wanna get out of the building cuz, well, it's comin down"
Were they seriously concerned after the first tower came down..I don't doubt it. Should they have been concerned after the second..damn straight. But saying 7 was inevitable just because they pulled back, easy to say after the fact. Bazant took a rather large risk in publishing a paper 2 days post 911 when there wasn't even the beginnings of an investigation. He would have looked quite the fool if there had been foul play (above and beyond the planes obviously).

 

[DGM]

Bazant took a rather large risk in publishing a paper 2 days post 911 when there wasn't even the beginnings of an investigation. He would have looked quite the fool if there had been foul play (above and beyond the planes obviously).

Not really. The paper was not about the nuts and bolts of collapse initiation. It was about the energy required for the collapse to continue and not arrest.

"Truthers" often look at this paper and point out aspects that don't match reality. If they understood the paper they would see how stupid this argument is. It was never meant to mimic reality. limiting case models rarely do.

 

[ergo]

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.

 

[ergo]

And thank god Zdenek Bazant never designed buildings.

 

[Justin39640]

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.

Yea, cause no one ever used a simplified model to try to begin explaining something complicated. Especially when information is limited.

 

[lexicon008]

Not really. The paper was not about the nuts and bolts of collapse initiation. It was about the energy required for the collapse to continue and not arrest.

"Truthers" often look at this paper and point out aspects that don't match reality. If they understood the paper they would see how stupid this argument is. It was never meant to mimic reality. limiting case models rarely do.

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.
Up to that point you have numerous media sources saying it looks like a controlled demo. You have people like New Mexico demolitions expert Van Romero saying it looked like explosives did it. You have fire fighters at the scene describing explosions. There are numerous radio calls about explosions.
So why does bazant seemingly ignore all of these reports/people and without any investigation come out with this paper?
Right or wrong it's pretty Ballsy

 

[ergo]

Yea, cause no one ever used a simplified model to try to begin explaining something complicated. Especially when information is limited.

Two days after the event very little information was yet available. There was certainly no need for an explanation before an investigation could take place. Nor could a conclusion arrived at before such an investigation be possibly considered explanatory.

As far as conjecture goes, he can speculate all he wants, along with everyone else. But there was never any need for a "Rapid Communication" presenting his hypotheses. He could simply have waited to consult with other engineers on the matter, or waited for information that the investigation would turn up.

As for simplified models, his is hardly simplified. He was presenting a very particular collapse propagation mechanism with almost zero information to go on. If it's not silly, bogus ********, it's fraud.

 

[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."

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?

 

[DGM]

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.
Up to that point you have numerous media sources saying it looks like a controlled demo. You have people like New Mexico demolitions expert Van Romero saying it looked like explosives did it. You have fire fighters at the scene describing explosions. There are numerous radio calls about explosions.
So why does bazant seemingly ignore all of these reports/people and without any investigation come out with this paper?
Right or wrong it's pretty Ballsy

Again, not really. His work would apply even if it was initiated by explosives(or whatever).

He was not interested in what got it going (and frankly, there's no reason to suspect foul play). He wanted to show that once it got going it was not going to stop. He used conditions that would be in favor of stopping the collapse. If it was "helped" would make it easier, not harder.

In a limiting model, you try to make it as hard as possible. If it fails at that point, it will fail at any. It's useful for design in that you can figure what's required for a structure to survive. Bazant was not trying to disprove conspiracy theories. In fact that probably never crossed his mind (until later).

 

[DGM]

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.

So, stop repeating it. The fact you don't understand models is not the worlds problem (and you don't understand models) (see below).

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.

First example.

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.

Second example.

Ergo, you just proved you don't understand models.

 

[MileHighMadness]

And thank god Zdenek Bazant never designed buildings.

Bazant is considered (by most) the most brilliant structural engineer on the planet.

 

[LSSBB]

So, stop repeating it. The fact you don't understand models is not the worlds problem (and you don't understand models) (see below).



First example.



Second example.

Ergo, you just proved you don't understand models.

As part of the requirements to get my Astrophysics degree I had to model a gas jet. No gas jet in particular, and using different formula for the strength of the radio signal, e.g. with a logarithmic profile.

To get my Mechanical Engineering Masters, I had to model rotation of imaginary objects using quaternions and demonstrate whether energy and momentum were conserved. Academic science and engineering would not exist without models that don't exactly reflect the real world.

 

[ergo]

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.

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

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

 

[DGM]

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

So, why did he model the connections/ impacts the way he did? Reality would be much easier for collapse to progress. .

 

[ergo]

Ergo, you just proved you don't understand models

DGM, what field are you employed in?

 

[cmckay]

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.

I have now concluded that you either have not read the paper, or you didn't understand a word you read.

So I can't take you seriously anymore. Sorry.

 

[ergo]

Bazant is considered (by most) the most brilliant structural engineer on the planet.

Source.

 

[DGM]

DGM, what field are you employed in?

I'm a general contractor/ builder. Why do you ask?

 

[ergo]

I have now concluded that you either have not read the paper, or you didn't understand a word you read.

So I can't take you seriously anymore. Sorry.

That's fine because I know you can't cite what pgimeno claims.

 

[ergo]

I'm a general contractor/ builder. Why do you ask?

And you apparently don't understand what models are for.

Let's put it this way, DGM: can you give us a real life example in your field where you are working from a model that is not required to represent reality or an outcome that would work in reality ?