You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #107: That's easy [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #78
107. That's easy
You are simply misunderstanding Bazant's argument. But before going into that, it's interesting to note that even if you were correct, that would not support the conclusion you would like to reach, that the collapse should not proceed. Even if you were correct, then there would "only" be 4.2 times more kinetic energy than the lower part of the structure could absorb, rather than 8.4.

But you are not correct, and the problem is really with your logic, not the math. Bazant certainly does not "assume that all the kinetic energy after a fall of one story (K) must be dissipated in the lower Part A." His calculation of Wc is simply the maximum of energy that the lower part could absorb. By noting that the kinetic energy available was 8.4 times larger than that, Bazant is simply pointing to the futility of hoping that the collapse could be arrested. That is, for the collapse to be arrested by those columns, something else would need to absorb almost 90% of the kinetic energy. He most certainly does not assume or claim that all of that energy could or did go into crushing those columns.

Refuting your own misunderstanding of Bazant's argument is obviously insufficient. To refute Bazant's conclusion in that paragraph, you need to show that either:

A) his calculation of the total kinetic energy is incorrect;
B) his calculation of the energy that could be absorbed by the top columns in the lower block is incorrect; or
C) you've found another energy sink that could absorb 90% of the available kinetic energy

... or some combination. As I said before, you need to find something like an order of magnitude error in Bazant's simple model before you can argue that the building should not have experienced total progressive collapse.

Until you can do that, the only people likely to be impressed with your "refutation" are those like thepeopleunited. And until you do, it's pretty danged obvious that you and he are not really basing your opinions on reason, but rather grasping at straws to defend an irrational speculation. You are so desperately hoping that someone will prove that the collapse would not be possible without demolition that you even find Gourley's "Newton's Third Law" nonsense to be impressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC