Science fail 3: supporters of NIST physics still relying on faith, foggy notions, over logic

129 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

From Kevin Ryan's "A New Standard for Deception" - summarized by Jim Hoffman here.

Quote:
3. Fireproofing widely dislodged?

The idea that fireproofing was removed from most of the structural steel surfaces of the impact zones is essential to NIST's theory. NIST sought to "prove" that the plane crashes could do this by shooting shotguns at surfaces coated with spray-on foam insulation. Contrary to the popular notion that the jolts of the plane crashes could knocked off large amounts of spray-on insulation from steel not directly in the line of fire, the tests showed that it took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation. In addition to the fact that there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been transformed into the equivalent of the thousands of shotgun blasts it would take to blast the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel in the fire areas, Ryan makes another argument based on the available energy.

    40:00

        * NIST says 2500 MJ of kinetic energy from plane that hit WTC1
              o Calculations show that all this energy was consumed in crushing aircraft and breaking columns and floors *
              o Shotgun tests found that 1 MJ per sq meter was needed to dislodge fireproofing
              o For the areas in question, intact floors and columns had 6000 sq meters of surface area
          * Calculations by Tomasz Wierzbicki of MIT
 

So, after the columns and the floors were destroyed, what was holding up the fireproofing?

Why are we assuming that it was sprayed fire insulation instead of the more easily installed gypsum panels?

Do you have a link to this supposed experiment by NIST?

Pants-of-dog

Please quote the relevant text.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

I'm sorry, my friend. You were the one complaining about qualitative vs. quantitative, claiming that the statements we were quoting from the NIST FAQ were merely "qualitative", and did we know the difference between the two.

There is a difference between using a qualitative comment from a source that is providing a public explanation and a qualitative comment coming from some anonymous internet poster's personal conjecture. Do you understand the difference?

Yes I do.

Please provide evidence that the upper block of storeys collapsed during or before the lower block of storeys did.

Since I have received no evidence from you in this regard, except for qualitative comments "coming from some anonymous internet poster", I feel that I can ask this.

jas

.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Would you like the evidence in the form of a magical picture taken by my imaginary camera that can take pictures of objects through large debris and dust clouds?

Or would you prefer a quantitave dissection with the complete math involved, including a prose commentary in language accessible to an elementary school student who has apparently never taken a physics course?

What's the matter? Can't find any visual evidence of the existence of your piledrivers? Not surprising, since simple physics would tell us that they would not survive any alleged crushing through the building below.

Unfortunately for you, if you can't prove the existence of these piledrivers, all the math in the world is mere conjecture. We could even call it fantasy.

pants wrote:
jas wrote:
Lol. Um, pants, what is causing the debris cloud?

The same thing that is causing debris clouds on the other sides of the building: collapse of the structure.

Yesterday you said:

Pants-of-dog wrote:

I have no idea how you can say that the picture is showing collpase on the opposite side of the tilt. There is a rather large debris cloud obscuring that area of the building.

Yet more confusion from pants. I don't think even he understands what he is saying.

The upper block is tilting away from the side showing the debris cloud. What is causing the collapse on this side that is not experiencing any crushing from the tilting block? That was my question. Do you understand now?

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Please provide evidence that the upper block of storeys collapsed during or before the lower block of storeys did.

LOL. Please provide evidence that the upper block of storeys even existed during the collapse progression!

Pants-of-dog

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25%20WTC%20...

Look at the text beginning at the bottom of the second column on page 5/11 on this PDF by Bazant for a mathematical model showing how the upper block was almost entirely rigid during the crush down phase.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

What's the matter? Can't find any visual evidence of the existence of your piledrivers? Not surprising, since simple physics would tell us that they would not survive any alleged crushing through the building below.

Unfortunately for you, if you can't prove the existence of these piledrivers, all the math in the world is mere conjecture. We could even call it fantasy.

Right. I should be clearer, as my attempt at humour was too complicated. You can't have a picture of the upper blockas it collapses through the lower block because there is a huge dust cloud in the way.

jas wrote:

Yesterday you said:

Pants-of-dog wrote:

I have no idea how you can say that the picture is showing collpase on the opposite side of the tilt. There is a rather large debris cloud obscuring that area of the building.

Yet more confusion from pants. I don't think even he understands what he is saying.

From the context of our discussion yesterday, it should be clear that my statement is meant to say that it would be impossible for you to show that collapse initiated there.

jas wrote:
The upper block is tilting away from the side showing the debris cloud. What is causing the collapse on this side that is not experiencing any crushing from the tilting block? That was my question. Do you understand now?

The columns on the side of the building away from th eimpact zone acted as a kind of hinge that began the tiliting we see. After the upper block tilted so much that this 'hinge' failed, the block began to fall downward. Since this hinge had to hold most of the weight of the upper block at the moment tilting began, it was only a matter of a second or less before those columns buckled.

I hope this clarifies things.

jas

The plain language explanation is in the abstract. Chandler shows the calculations further into his paper. If you understand the math, you should be able to evaluate it.

Quote:
The roof line of the North Tower of the World Trade Center is shown to have been in constant downward acceleration until it disappeared. A downward acceleration of the falling upper block implies a downward net force, which requires that the upward resistive force was less than the weight of the block. Therefore the downward force exerted by the falling block must also have been less than its weight. Since the lower section of the building was designed to support several times the weight of the upper block, the reduced force exerted by the falling block was insufficient to crush the lower section of the building. Therefore the falling block could not have acted as a "pile driver." The downward acceleration of the upper block can be understood as a consequence of, not the cause of, the disintegration of the lower section of the building.

 

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Please provide evidence that the upper block of storeys collapsed during or before the lower block of storeys did.

LOL. Please provide evidence that the upper block of storeys even existed during the collapse progression!

I already have. See the post directly below yours that I am quoting here.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

The plain language explanation is in the abstract. Chandler shows the calculations further into his paper. If you understand the math, you should be able to evaluate it.

Quote:
The roof line of the North Tower of the World Trade Center is shown to have been in constant downward acceleration until it disappeared. A downward acceleration of the falling upper block implies a downward net force, which requires that the upward resistive force was less than the weight of the block. Therefore the downward force exerted by the falling block must also have been less than its weight. Since the lower section of the building was designed to support several times the weight of the upper block, the reduced force exerted by the falling block was insufficient to crush the lower section of the building. Therefore the falling block could not have acted as a "pile driver." The downward acceleration of the upper block can be understood as a consequence of, not the cause of, the disintegration of the lower section of the building.

This is the second time we've looked at Chandler's work. As I said before, this is a misapplication of Newton's Third Law.

I then explained that Newton's third law is actually derived from the law of conservation of momentum, and then I used the conservation of momentum in my mathematical example.

Would you like me to go over it again?

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

You can't have a picture of the upper blockas it collapses through the lower block because there is a huge dust cloud in the way.

How convenient for you. Is it fair to say, then, that these piledrivers are only hypothesized? That they may not exist in reality, and that they may not have behaved according to the mathematical model Bazant provides? What would an honest scientific inquiry say to this?

Pants-of-dog wrote:

From the context of our discussion yesterday, it should be clear that my statement is meant to say that it would be impossible for you to show that collapse initiated there.

Whether the collapse initiated there or not is irrelevant. In your theory, the collapse is caused by the crushing down of the upper block onto the floors below, successively. How is that side of the building collapsing if the tilting upper block is not producing any stress on that side?

pants wrote:

The columns on the side of the building away from the impact zone acted as a kind of hinge that began the tiliting we see. After the upper block tilted so much that this 'hinge' failed, the block began to fall downward. Since this hinge had to hold most of the weight of the upper block at the moment tilting began, it was only a matter of a second or less before those columns buckled.

I hope this clarifies things.

Oh, the "hinge" theory. This is new. More silly physics from Pants. And he even times this "hinge" collapse for us!

Quote:
it was only a matter of a second or less

This is getting silly, arguing about the Pants-of-dog theory.

The upper block would fall into the impact zone, not away from it. Unless, of course, the wind blew it? 

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

I already have. See the post directly below yours that I am quoting here.

Is there a picture in there? A mathematical model is not proof of the existence of something. That model is a hypothesis. It depends on the existence of the upper blocks. It does not prove them.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

This is the second time we've looked at Chandler's work. As I said before, this is a misapplication of Newton's Third Law.

I then explained that Newton's third law is actually derived from the law of conservation of momentum, and then I used the conservation of momentum in my mathematical example.

Would you like me to go over it again?

If you like, but I've noted before your tendency to use incorrect models in your analyses.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

Pants-of-dog wrote:

I already have. See the post directly below yours that I am quoting here.

Is there a picture in there? A mathematical model is not proof of the existence of something. That model is a hypothesis. It depends on the existence of the upper blocks. It does not prove them.

Are you unable to understand why you don't get a picture? Again, it would be impossible to get such a picture because of the large dust clouds in the way.

What the paper does is show how the rigidity of the upper block through the crush down phase is consistent with known scientific principles. In that regard, it is evidence that the upper block maintained its rigidity throughout that phase of collapse.

So, you have yet to provide any evidence at all that the upper block collapsed during the crush-down phase..

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

If you like, but I've noted before your tendency to use incorrect models in your analyses.

Please show me how any models I may have used were incorrect.

jas

From Hoffman's summary of Ryan again:

Quote:
2. How much were loads redistributed?

NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle: increases of 2000% above the design live loads.

 

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Are you unable to understand why you don't get a picture? Again, it would be impossible to get such a picture because of the large dust clouds in the way.

What the paper does is show how the rigidity of the upper block through the crush down phase is consistent with known scientific principles. In that regard, it is evidence that the upper block maintained its rigidity throughout that phase of collapse.

So, you have yet to provide any evidence at all that the upper block collapsed during the crush-down phase..

Is it fair to say, then, that these piledrivers are only hypothesized? That they may not exist in reality, and that they may not have behaved according to the mathematical model Bazant provides? What would an honest scientific inquiry say to this?

I cannot provide any "evidence" that an alleged upper block collapsed while it crushed through 80 to 90 floors of a steel-framed highrise, because there is no evidence that this upper block existed after the collapse initiation. You were the one who claimed that the upper block would collapse "somewhat".

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:
How convenient for you. Is it fair to say, then, that these piledrivers are only hypothesized? That they may not exist in reality, and that they may not have behaved according to the mathematical model Bazant provides? What would an honest scientific inquiry say to this?

No, a hypothesis is a verifiable statement that has yet to be shown to be accurate. Bazant's work is more like a theory in that it has already been tested and has supporting evidence. So, an honest scientific inquiry would support Bazant's claim.

 

jas wrote:
Whether the collapse initiated there or not is irrelevant.

I think it's irrelevant too, which is why I was so confused as to why you were trying to argue that.

 

jas wrote:
In your theory, the collapse is caused by the crushing down of the upper block onto the floors below, successively. How is that side of the building collapsing if the tilting upper block is not producing any stress on that side?

It is producing stress. I explained it in the post about the hinge. Go read it again.

 

jas wrote:
Oh, the "hinge" theory. This is new. More silly physics from Pants. And he even times this "hinge" collapse for us!

I notice people make fun of my arguments when they can not actually show how they are wrong.

 

jas wrote:
This is getting silly, arguing about the Pants-of-dog theory.

The upper block would fall into the impact zone, not away from it. Unless, of course, the wind blew it?

I never suggested it would not fall into the impact zone. The "hinge" is on the other side of the building from where the jet impacted.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Please show me how any models I may have used were incorrect.

I have already pointed out to you that you twice incorrectly used closed system energy analyses for what is obviously an open system.

remind remind's picture

continued here

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:
...

I cannot provide any "evidence" that an alleged upper block collapsed while it crushed through 80 to 90 floors of a steel-framed highrise, because there is no evidence that this upper block existed after the collapse initiation. You were the one who claimed that the upper block would collapse "somewhat".

So, you have no evidence for your claim.

Please note that I have provided mathematical evidence for its existence, as well as a clear explanation why it would be impossible to get pictorial evidence.

You have no evidence. At all.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Please show me how any models I may have used were incorrect.

I have already pointed out to you that you twice incorrectly used closed system energy analyses for what is obviously an open system.

You claimed that. Now you have to actually show that I did that. Just like I could claim that you are actually GW Bush, but no one is going to believe me until I show them that you are Dubya.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

No, a hypothesis is a verifiable statement that has yet to be shown to be accurate.

Yes, that's what the Bazant mathematical model is.

pants wrote:
Bazant's work is more like a theory in that it has already been tested and has supporting evidence. So, an honest scientific inquiry would support Bazant's claim.

LOL. Is it a theory, or is it "more like" a theory? Where, when and by whom was it "tested"?

pants wrote:

I notice people make fun of my arguments when they can not actually show how they are wrong.

The picture itself shows that you're wrong. We make fun because there are no other words for your silly theories.

pants wrote:

I never suggested it would not fall into the impact zone. The "hinge" is on the other side of the building from where the jet impacted.

Your technique is to wear us out with utterly nonsensical statements that require numerous posts to clarify what you mean. The tilting block is not falling into the impact zone. It is falling away from it. The "hinge" you speak of is on the opposite side of the impact zone.

jas

.

jas

.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Please note that I have provided mathematical evidence for its existence, as well as a clear explanation why it would be impossible to get pictorial evidence.

You don't seem to understand what evidence is.

A mathematical model that relies on a hypothesized existence of something is not evidence. If this were not true, I could say that we have "evidence" of alien UFOs because it's theoretically possible to manufacture a flying saucer.

You have not provided any evidence that these upper blocks existed after the collapse initiation. Therefore, the only correct conclusion we can come to is that the upper blocks are hypothesized.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Closing for length.

Pages

Topic locked