• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are massless supports valid for use in progressive collapse simulation?

As a pertinent footnote to this wretched discussion, I'd like to add:

Bazant said:
The mass of columns is assumed to be lumped, half and half, into the mass of the upper and lower floors, while the columns are massless.
Click to expand...
http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-PROGRESSIVE-COLLAPSE-BAZANT.pdf

I knew this all along, but I didn't realize it was mentioned anywhere explicitly. There are three things to take away from this:

1) Using massless supports is A-OK as far as Bazant is concerned, and here's his publication list, which includes textbooks on engineering mechanics
2) He DID use massless supports in his calculations (as has everyone else), the first and still most notable modeling of progressive collapse
3) He didn't bother mentioning it until about 5 years after the fact, because it's not an important detail

After psikeyhackr beating on this for more than a couple of years like it was some kind of problem, I don't think it's bad form to stress how incredibly stupid this objection is - again and again and again and again and again....
 
Kat Dorman said:
As a pertinent footnote to this wretched discussion, I'd like to add:


http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-PROGRESSIVE-COLLAPSE-BAZANT.pdf

I knew this all along, but I didn't realize it was mentioned anywhere explicitly. There are three things to take away from this:

1) Using massless supports is A-OK as far as Bazant is concerned, and here's his publication list, which includes textbooks on engineering mechanics
2) He DID use massless supports in his calculations (as has everyone else), the first and still most notable modeling of progressive collapse
3) He didn't bother mentioning it until about 5 years after the fact, because it's not an important detail

After psikeyhackr beating on this for more than a couple of years like it was some kind of problem, I don't think it's bad form to stress how incredibly stupid this objection is - again and again and again and again and again....
Click to expand...

May I express MY objection to the whole OFFICIAL FIASCO of an "explanation"
Note that there were 3 airliner crashes where the entire aircraft ( at least 99% of it )
managed to enter the building through a whole punched in the wall by said "airliner".
magic trick, total disappearance of an airliner.
also may I point out that 3 steel framed skyscrapers were completely destroyed that day.
other buildings in the same complex were damaged, but not completely destroyed.
and in the case of the towers, mass quantities of pulverized material had been created
in the process of demolishing the building. it takes a LOT of energy to pulverize so much material.

The fact that we get events of similar character ( plane crashes, building "collapse" )
in a sequence 1-2-3 .... just like that and all on the same day and all very neat & complete.
What does that say? is NOBODY concerned about this?
 
Menard_K said:
May I express MY objection to the whole OFFICIAL FIASCO of an "explanation"
Click to expand...
Yeah, but why here? This topic is about the use of massless connections in modeling ONLY, a very narrow topic. There are at least 40-50 active threads in this subforum which are about the more general aspects of 9/11. This isn't one of them.
 
Kat Dorman said:
Yeah, but why here? This topic is about the use of massless connections in modeling ONLY, a very narrow topic. There are at least 40-50 active threads in this subforum which are about the more general aspects of 9/11. This isn't one of them.
Click to expand...

He started posting this nonsense in every thread he could find after I asked him a simple question. I think it is his way of trying to avoid the question. I know you can answer it in fact pretty much everybody can he refuses to because of the implications it has for the nonsense he posts.
Anyway Ill ask MK again
Do you think that regardless of the force involved the wings could not penetrate the buildings because aluminum is not as hard as steel?
It is a simple question that any one who has taken high school physics should be able to answer
 
Last edited:
You mean that Bazant told people up front that he was using massless supports?

Shocking!

psik
 
Quag said:
He started posting this nonsense in every thread he could find after I asked him a simple question.
Click to expand...
You know what's funny? I remember Menard_K getting upset at pvsi (?) for the same thing, posting hit and run in thread after thread. Guess the spammer didn't want to be outspammed.
 
psikeyhackr said:
You mean that Bazant told people up front that he was using massless supports?

Shocking!

psik
Click to expand...
Nooo. Like I say, he waited 5 years. You read that part, right? You didn't just go off half-cocked and reply without reading what you were replying to, did you?
 
Kat Dorman said:
Nooo. Like I say, he waited 5 years. You read that part, right? You didn't just go off half-cocked and reply without reading what you were replying to, did you?
Click to expand...

Didn't you notice I asked a question?

So you are saying he is just like you therefore it is OK?

I have wasted lots of time reading stuff that you made unnecessarily complicated so I didn't spend a lot of time reading it.

psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
Didn't you notice I asked a question?
Click to expand...
Did you notice I answered it with the first word? Sheesh.

So you are saying he is just like you therefore it is OK?
Click to expand...
I'm saying it's OK. I'm saying it's a good idea. Therefore, people who understand mechanics (me, Bazant) will do it. People who whine about it are people who don't understand mechanics.

I have wasted lots of time reading stuff that you made unnecessarily complicated so I didn't spend a lot of time reading it.
Click to expand...
Right.
 
Good idea to bump the thread....but I notice a somewhat limited demographic subset:
Kat Dorman said:
Therefore, people who understand mechanics (me, Bazant) will do it.
Click to expand...
I agree KD and Bazant "understand mechanics" - even though I disagree with certain aspects of Bazant's work. (The bits he got wrong.)

But I can think of at least one other person who may just qualify. :2wave:
 
ozeco41 said:
Good idea to bump the thread....but I notice a somewhat limited demographic subset:
I agree KD and Bazant "understand mechanics" - even though I disagree with certain aspects of Bazant's work. (The bits he got wrong.)

But I can think of at least one other person who may just qualify. :2wave:
Click to expand...
No, dammit, there are only TWO people in the world who truly understand!

Okay, I guess there's room for one more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom