Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Status
Not open for further replies.
About 24 hours because I have to go to bed right now and then off to work. In the meantime, look up and read his first report. Perhaps it was Zhou's fault, but Bazant should have caught that blunder --being that he's an engineer and all.

Don't lose faith, man, just give him another 6 months and he'll come up with a new one.
 
KreeL said:
...
Oh brother - in his first paper he claimed the jet fuel melted the steel. LOL
Click to expand...
Show me.

Your statement is delusional.

Why do you post lies about 911?

Does this mean you are not going to get more specific than telling lies about Bazant? No engineering stuff?
 
Last edited:
KreeL said:
About 24 hours because I have to go to bed right now and then off to work. In the meantime, look up and read his first report. Perhaps it was Zhou's fault, but Bazant should have caught that blunder --being that he's an engineer and all.

Don't lose faith, man, just give him another 6 months and he'll come up with a new one.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, I thought these theories were all faith-based. If so, wouldn't they stay the same, regardless of the evidence? Why would they change as more evidence comes to light?

More importantly, why would you complain about this?
 
Heiwa said:
I can only repeat: Now tell, how do you do it with the religion? Or in original: , nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Religion?
Click to expand...

Actually, your position is the more religous, and, if I may point it out, more superstititous belief. You seem to be positing that Xkg, after falling onto another Xkg and breaking it loose will still hit the next floor weighing only Xkg, rather than 2Xkg.

That doesn't even make sense to the dyscalculic among us.
 
Heiwa said:
LOL! Now tell, again, how do you do it with the religion?

Nothing can arrest it! LOL!
Click to expand...


Stop giggling like a demented child. You are the religious fanatic here, clinging to false beliefs that have been completely refuted. You pretend that the columns were crushed. They weren't and you got caught. You pretend that when the part of the building starting with the impact floors collapses it doesn't add the mass of each successive floor it encounters. This was shown to be nonsense. You pretend that the kinetic energy of the collapse isn't sufficient to overcome resistance. Real engineers have shown that it was far in excess of what was needed. You pretend that progressive collapses don't happen and you were proved wrong. You don't get anything right and you can't learn from anyone who knows more than you do.

I don't know how to use religion to argue science. Your attempts to do so have failed miserably.
 
Last edited:
six7s said:
Funny, huh?

But looks ain't everything

On a slightly more serious note...

How about - instead of snickering like a couple of nine year-olds* - you explain (in simple, yet grown-up terms) how you know that the one floor immediately below impact was able to resist the free-falling force of the floors above impact
TYIA :)



_______________________
* If you are actually nine, please tell a fart joke instead
Click to expand...


I ask this question over and over. Heiwa and his little friend giggle like schoolgirls then run away. What is supposed to stop the collapse? Neither the fake engineer or his clueless echo have any idea.
 
Conservation of Energy, Conservation of Momentum, and lack of explosives (since you have faith none were present).
 
KreeL, your repeated use of the term 'religious' is immensely stupid

Mind you, so is everything else you say
 
KreeL said:
Conservation of Energy, Conservation of Momentum, and lack of explosives (since you have faith none were present).
Click to expand...


But you don't know anything at all about science or engineering. The real engineers here have explained your guru's errors many times. You can only parrot what Heiwa says and he's absurdly wrong. You spout nonsense and make no effort to understand.
No, the laws conservation of energy or momentum do not explain how a collapse that increases in mass and momentum magically stops. Stop mindlessly bleating and try to learn.
 
FineWine said:
But you don't know anything at all about science or engineering. The real engineers here have explained your guru's errors many times. You can only parrot what Heiwa says and he's absurdly wrong. You spout nonsense and make no effort to understand.
No, the laws conservation of energy or momentum do not explain how a collapse that increases in mass and momentum magically stops. Stop mindlessly bleating and try to learn.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you forgot the Truther Creed:

DEATH BEFORE LEARNING!
 
aggle-rithm said:
Sorry, you forgot the Truther Creed:

DEATH BEFORE LEARNING!
Click to expand...

I can see how sane people who spend a lot of time here can get very frustrated. You have one guy who claims to be an engineer and all he does is babble about "religion" and "fundamentalists," while being incapable of understanding a word the engineers write. Another guy advertises his total ignorance about science every time he posts and he invokes the laws of conservation of energy and momentum without having a clue about either.

Floors of the building are collapsing, adding mass and momentum as they proceed. What sort of magic is supposed to stop them?

Sheesh!
 
six7s said:
Maybe, in a radical departure from conjecture-based conclusion jumping, Heiwa has finally adopted actual trials - beginning with the brick experiment
Click to expand...

picture.php
 
KreeL said:
Is Bazant an engineer?

Where's his model?
Click to expand...
Why haven't you looked this up for yourself previously?

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant.html

Note: Do you have any idea what it means to be elected to the National Academy of Engineering? There are tens of millions of engineers in the world. In 2009, 65 were elected, bringing the total to 2400.

Do you know what it means to be elected to the National Academy of Science? There are several million scientists at work in the world. In 2009, 72 were elected, bringing the total to 2150.

The American Academy of Arts & Sciences inducted 212 new members in 2009, bringing its total to 4600.

I don't know how many people are members of all three. I'm sure it's not more than a handful.

You might want to check out his list of publications: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/docs/Bazant/publicat.pdf

That's 490 publications & 6 books in a 45 year career. That's over 10 publications per year. Every year of his career.

Bazant is not the Michael Jordan of Engineering. While everyone has their favorites, I'd vote for Harold Edgerton or Kelly Johnson. But he's DEFINITELY Hall of Fame.

Now, tell me about Heiwa "correcting him"...

tom
 
Bazant proves nothing. His one-dimensional model is a fraud. He doesn't explain where he gets his data. Even NIST contradicts him all over the place. He is a government shill.
 
KreeL said:
Bazant proves nothing. His one-dimensional model is a fraud. He doesn't explain where he gets his data. Even NIST contradicts him all over the place. He is a government shill.
Click to expand...
Talk? You think you say so without presenting a case makes is so! NOT

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

Please point it out; his model. Show us the equations you think he got wrong. Go ahead make my day.

And you better include this one too.
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

Then take this on too!
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

Please be specific and use references to your work to prove what you say is true. Point out what is wrong by paragraph and equation.

You picked up some key words from 911Truth failures and you repeat them not having a clue what you are saying! No reference to work, no specific problems; you just talk and call him a shill because you never did read his paper and you would not understand it if you did.

Show where NIST contradicts his work; source it to NIST and Bazant.
 
Last edited:
The case of the debunking of Bazant has been presented dozens of times. If you haven't read the peer reviews, then you should. All of his papers failed, all three of his theories (so far, he's probably coming up with another one later this year) have failed.

Get up to speed, and report back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom