The 9/11 Forum

Darkwing wrote:... it doesn't take a degree in engineering to see how Bazant manipulates his axioms to guarantee the desired result.

Hm. You haven't got to the "so what?" stage on that. I understand.

AZCat wrote:My pleasure. I hope everyone enjoys the "new" thread...

Oh you bet. I can't thank you enough. It's sad that I can't come up with a snazzy title. Can you? It is, after all your post. Perhaps something like "Who is scott?"

You could try "Tangent from a Single Point", or "Much Ado About Nothing". That's all I can think of right now - I'm kind of worn out from my trip.

The first one struck a chord immediately, the second built over time. Second it is, thank you again.

I love it, but I have to confess "Who is scott?" is pretty hilarious.

As if the confusion were insufficient, now the topic needs to be moved to Other Issues forum. Sometime soon when it dies down.

Which could be immediately, that would be unfortunate.

"Who is scott?" would have worked, but I didn't want to pull him into a thread he didn't start (heh!).

Hopefully the thread doesn't die down, but I will not be participating again for a while. I need to get to bed.

It is difficult to catch my breath. Reading on into newton's post, it's like Alta Vista translator turned moderator.

newton wrote:sorry to "dirty" your thread, although, i think the egg thing is relevant to the topic.

Of course it is.

Get some rest, AZCat, your work is done for the day. Good night!

Hm. You haven't got to the "so what?" stage on that. I understand.

No I have, but what disturbs me is to not have a formal description of it, that's all. As I said, I don't really care who did it, but I need my reality to make sense one way or another.

The WTC7 is easy to "SEE" in the video and the same is the case in Pennsylvania (or wherever) and the eyewitnesses at the Pentagon leave little room for argument.

But the WTC1+2 is more abstract.

I know that Bazant assumes contradictory premises. What bothers me is that it seems that no-one has tried to precisely quantify the nature of contradiction so that you can explain in a one-liner: "The chance of a Bazant-esque collapse occurring naturally is 4.357012 Gazillion to one."

Something catchy you know.

I see. Let me dwell on that a bit.

Darkwing, would you be willing to apply your methodology to an example other than the towers? I have an example in mind, there is a video, but I want to do this in a more information theoretic way. You ask for information, I supply it, you process and see what conclusions you come to. Sound OK?

It would be more interesting if I could challenge you on why you want any particular bit of information, though that could get obnoxious I admit.

I see. Let me dwell on that a bit.

Darkwing, would you be willing to apply your methodology to an example other than the towers? I have an example in mind, there is a video, but I want to do this in a more information theoretic way. You ask for information, I supply it, you process and see what conclusions you come to. Sound OK?

Excellent!

I can't guarantee that I will get every step right of course, you will need to check my workings, it is more the procedure. Either way it should be easy to see where I go off course if I do go off course, that's the great thing.

It would be more interesting if I could challenge you on why you want any particular bit of information, though that could get obnoxious I admit.

That shouldn't be a problem. But you can only come to conclusions based on the given information, otherwise the whole thing would be invalid in any case.

If I accept contradictory premises I could prove logically that Aliens live on the planet mars and that they have a penchant for fine Burgundy without any further information.

So I should be able to prove something outside of what the given information would bear.

All right, this could be cool. I feel it's necessary to disclose something about the chosen example, so as to avoid any appearance of trickery when it comes out later. What do you think? It may be a big deal, it may not, I can't really know until you find out and tell me. Of course, if I tell you, you may be disappointed that I spilled the beans.

I will say that you shouldn't take as a given that the 2nd law of thermo is obeyed IF it's interpreted as a natural collapse. As such, that's what we'd try to determine.

If numeric information is required, that may be tough, all I have are image frames. I can make some statements about relative masses and capacities and such, but there may be a limit. If that, won't do, I'll have to scour up another example with some traceability.

All right, this could be cool. I feel necessary to disclose something about the chosen example, so as to avoid any appearance of trickery when it comes out later. What do you think? It may be a big deal, it may not, I can't really know until you find out and tell me.

Can't imagine it should matter too much. Except if you are deliberately misleading.

I will say that you shouldn't taken as a given that the 2nd law of thermo is obeyed IF it's interpreted as a natural collapse. As such, that's what we'd try to determine.

Hmmm, that could be a problem...

Let's put it this way: I am not going to assume that the law is obeyed globally, since that is what we are trying to ascertain. But I will accept for the sake the sake of argument that it does in the Reductio ad Absurdum sense. If I reach an absurdity then either some exceedingly rare quantum event has taken place or someone did it deliberately. I ignore exceedingly rare quantum events. Make sense?

But it really depends on what you know and what you want to know about what is going on, the method should work in any "change of state" calculation chain.

If numeric information is required, that may be tough, all I have are image frames. I can make some statements about relative masses and capacities and such, but there may be a limit. If that, won't do, I'll have to scour up another example with some traceability.

Only the sign of the delta at the local level is required.

I only need to know if the system in question has changed in terms of information/energy/force distribution at a particular level of detail and in which way it has.

But you shouldn't need to have to tell me that, it should be clearly visible.

I can tell you are going to make this a hard one though lol, I'm off for a little while. Go ahead whenever you're ready.