Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...


this coming from a person who has demonstrated through EVERY single post that you do not know what you are talking abuot.

Bazant - fact based supported reports about the collapse

Kreel - a no name, internet troll, who thinks he knows more than engineers.
 
Why do you have so much trouble understanding what I'm asking?

Who lied? Bazant?...or NIST?
 
KreeL said:
Why do you have so much trouble understanding what I'm asking?
Click to expand...
Because it seems that everything you write is preposterous

Why do you ask?

Are you genuinely surprised that your credibility is sub-atomic?

KreeL said:
Who lied? Bazant?...or NIST?
Click to expand...
If you can identify a significant discrepancy in their workings/findings, please describe the significance
 
Since when is changing a theory a bad thing in science?

I'm not saying Bazant did or didn't, on this issue or any other. I haven't read his body of work.

The whole aim of science, as far as I can tell, is to describe the world the best way you can. When you learn something new sometimes you must change the way you describe the world.

KreeL said:
You can't tell me which one lied? Bazant or NIST?
Click to expand...
Does this qualify as an excluded middle fallacy? Why not consider that both lied, neither lied, one was wrong, one was right, or both were right? Why ask this loaded question in the first place?

six7s said:
If you can identify a significant discrepancy in their workings/findings, please describe the significance
Click to expand...
I would be interested in reading your response to this, Kreel. But don't just plagiarize this time, ok? It is very bad scholarship, and will only make your reputation worse.
 
Last edited:
This is true. However, the faithbased in this thread pointed to Bazant's model as some kind of evidence, yet it is repudiated by NIST. Did Bazant change his model? If so, then show us his new improved one!
 
KreeL said:
This is true. However, the faithbased in this thread pointed to Bazant's model as some kind of evidence, yet it is repudiated by NIST. Did Bazant change his model? If so, then show us his new improved one!
Click to expand...

I'm going to repeat what six7s said: If you can identify a significant discrepancy in their workings/findings, please describe the significance.
 
KreeL said:
You can't tell me which one lied? Bazant or NIST?
Click to expand...
Correct, I can't... simply because I haven't read either of the reports*

I have, however, read a few of your posts and recognise that you are in the habit of making unsubstantiated claims

If you can't substantiate them, don't make them

Easy, huh?

Now... getting back to the topic:

If you can identify a significant discrepancy in their workings/findings, please describe the significance





______________________
* this might come as a surprise to you, but the majority of people on the planet have no idea what NIST is
 
Guess I win. None of you even read the reports.

Wow! Faithbased all the way.

Next time when you want to post in a thread, I would recommend you at least know what you are talking about. Come to think of it, why are any of you guys posting at all if you don't know what you're posting about?:confused:

pwnd.
 
Kreel is a liar

KreeL said:
First it was "THE PANCAKE" -- Then it was "FLOOR TRUSS FAILURE" -- Now it's "FOOT OF GOD".

Oh brother - in his first paper he claimed the jet fuel melted the steel. LOL
Click to expand...

I read the first Bazant paper. Nowhere does it say the jet fuel melted the steel.

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

"The cause was the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the
steel columns to very high temperature. The heating lowered the yield strength and caused viscoplastic (creep) buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the tower and of the columns in the building core."

You are a liar and therefore a loser.
 
KreeL said:
Guess I win. None of you even read the reports.

Wow! Faithbased all the way.

Next time when you want to post in a thread, I would recommend you at least know what you are talking about. Come to think of it, why are any of you guys posting at all if you don't know what you're posting about?:confused:

pwnd.
Click to expand...

What did you win? You made an accusation that either Bazant or the NIST lied, we asked you what makes you think that, and you say "Guess I win."

You have won nothing. You have said nothing. You spout claims and you are completely unable to substantiate them. The one time you tried to back up your claim, you plagiarized someone else's work.

If you read Bazant's papers, the NIST report, understood them, and recognized major discrepancies tell us what they are.

We have practically begged you, and I am running out of patience.
 
Last edited:
KreeL said:
So who lied? Bazant?...or NIST?
Click to expand...

That's the fifth time you've asked that question while ignoring our requests for evidence to believe one of them is lying.

I we were talking in person this is about the time I'd try to sock you in the nose.
 
KreeL said:
Guess I win.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you win!

You want a medal?

Or a chest to hang it on?

KreeL said:
None of you even read the reports.
Click to expand...
I haven't read much about homoeopathy, either

However, I've read enough to:
  1. learn that its an important issue for many people

    and
  2. to form an opinion - which is subject to change, should convincing evidence surface

Likewise, I am reading about 9/11 CT...

So far, I have yet to read anything that isn't obviously written by deluded fools

However, I need to read more before I can conclude its all complete and utter bollocks; something you are NOT dissuading me from

Serious question: are you old enough to drive?
 
KreeL said:
You don't know the meaning of the word.

Who lied? Bazant?...or NIST?
Click to expand...

If you are saying I don't know the meaning of plagiarism, I do. And you did it. You copied something someone else wrote word-for-word and made it appear as if it was your own.

I'm through with dealing with you. You refuse to participate in a discussion. You refuse to back up your accusations. You repeat yourself incessantly. You are dead to me and I will be ignoring you henceforth.

Have a nice night and go jump off a bridge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom