Bazant was right!! Imagine that

[alienentity]

This technique is still a controlled demolition though. I don't see how its disproving anything the troofers say about buildings only collapsing symmetrically by CD. You haven't proved Bazant was right. Bazant said that 911 occured without CD. The building you show occured with CD. Don't worry this doesn't mean 911 was an inside job, but this by no means shows "bazant was right."

Yeah, without addressing the OP, (I'll let him tackle that) several posters have described the various important lessons from a non-explosive, top-down collapse in disproving truther arguments. Additionally, you mentioned that it doesn't disprove 'anything the troofers say about buildings only collapsing symmetrically by CD'. Well, I think that statement is actually incorrect, insofar as the WTC towers are concerned - and that's a very important mistake, IMHO.

The towers did not collapse symmetrically in any sense that a CD does - the verinage CD's very clearly allow an upper block to drop evenly onto the lower structure, whereas the upper blocks in the towers failed asymmetrically, as evidenced by the various degrees of tilt - in the case of WTC2 it was quite extreme. The subsequent destruction of the towers was also not into their footprints but flung debris randomly outside them, onto many other buildings.
This is hardly asymmetrical, and quite unlike any CD we've ever seen.

Hope that helps.

 

[angrysoba]

Sofia 'clunkity clunk' Shafquat

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1661234396051243299#

clapping hands

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_IgH8_GpO4

I'm not sure why but when listening to them I thought about roadrunner cartoons where a ledge breaks off a cliff-face and roadrunner or coyote manages to simply step off it.

That seems to be their thinking, "Imagine a floor hitting another floor at about the speed it takes me to clap my hands..." My God, what drivel! But nice to see them having a fun day out.

 

[Mobertermy]

Yeah, without addressing the OP, (I'll let him tackle that) several posters have described the various important lessons from a non-explosive, top-down collapse in disproving truther arguments. Additionally, you mentioned that it doesn't disprove 'anything the troofers say about buildings only collapsing symmetrically by CD'. Well, I think that statement is actually incorrect, insofar as the WTC towers are concerned - and that's a very important mistake, IMHO.

The towers did not collapse symmetrically in any sense that a CD does - the verinage CD's very clearly allow an upper block to drop evenly onto the lower structure, whereas the upper blocks in the towers failed asymmetrically, as evidenced by the various degrees of tilt - in the case of WTC2 it was quite extreme. The subsequent destruction of the towers was also not into their footprints but flung debris randomly outside them, onto many other buildings.
This is hardly asymmetrical, and quite unlike any CD we've ever seen.

Hope that helps.

By pointing out that the top of the WTC was asymmetrical that is another problem with comparing this video with the WTC. The technique used in this video has a symmetrical top smashing down causing symmetrical collapse beneath it. In the case of WTC we have an asymmetrical top section smashing down to cause a symmetrical collapse. Hope this helps.

 

[Horatius]

This technique is still a controlled demolition though. I don't see how its disproving anything the troofers say about buildings only collapsing symmetrically by CD.

The issue isn't "collapsing symmetrically", it's collapsing at all. There is a large subset of truthers who have declared that this sort of top-down collapse is physically impossible. They say that this sort of collapse cannot occur without the use of explosives (or themite) to cut all of the supporting columns, all the way to the ground.

This technique proves that such cutting is not, in fact, necessary.

As well, Bazant et al. wrote a paper explaining the energetics of just such a collapse, a paper which was widely condemned by the Truthers. This technique shows that, in at least some cases, Bazant's analysis was correct.

Therefore, all of their arguments that use this as a basis are shown to be flawed.

There may be other issues they can raise with the collapses on 9/11, but this particular one has been categorically debunked.

 

[jaydeehess]

This technique is still a controlled demolition though. I don't see how its disproving anything the troofers say about buildings only collapsing symmetrically by CD. You haven't proved Bazant was right. Bazant said that 911 occured without CD. The building you show occured with CD. Don't worry this doesn't mean 911 was an inside job, but this by no means shows "bazant was right."

This doesn't look like a steel building either.

"Bazant was right" in the sense that the energy to produce global collapse can be had if a large upper section is allowed to impact the rest of the structure.

In the verniage technique this is accomplished by pulling in the columns at one level which makes the point on those columns at which this is occuring unstable and unable to support the load above that point.

In the WTC towers this was accomplished by the weakening of the coulmns due to initial aircraft impact, heat and the pulling in of the perimeter columns by the sagging floor pans.

One TM adherent is famous (infamous?) for his insistence that a smaller, upper block simply cannot crush down a larger lower block. He says it is impossible thus putting him at direct odds with what Bazant has said.

With the verniage technique we see that Bazant is correct and the other (Heiwa) is incorrect.

Are you are now asking that a historical reference be found in which global collapse is caused by aircraft impact followed by widespread office fires?

 

[Horatius]

By pointing out that the top of the WTC was asymmetrical that is another problem with comparing this video with the WTC. The technique used in this video has a symmetrical top smashing down causing symmetrical collapse beneath it. In the case of WTC we have an asymmetrical top section smashing down to cause a symmetrical collapse. Hope this helps.

Thinking about this a bit more.

Here's the problem: How does one do science when that science involves large collapsing buildings?

Science often starts with an observation of a phenomenon, which might be a one-time event, over which you have little or no control (See: WTC collapses).

Then, science attempts to explain that observation by analyzing what data we have, and creating an hypothesis (See Bazant et al., discussing why the WTC collapsed as it did).

Now, normally at this point, we'd do some experiments, designed to clarify whatever issues the analysis raised. However, such experiments are hard to do in this case, as ramming planes into buildings is somewhat discouraged.

Thus, we must look elsewhere for experimental confirmations. Some people tried creating scale models (See: rabbit cage guy, pop can guy, Richard
"Box Boy" Gage, and others). However, the difficulties in properly scaling the material properties of these models so as to be accurate representations of the WTC buildings lead many to reject these models. To date, no researcher in scale-model design has addressed these issues, and as such, this avenue of inquiry would seem to be a dead end.

However, we have recently discovered this "verinage" technique. While this is not a perfect analogy to the collapses of the WTC (See above cited differences, as well as differences in scale and construction design), this technique is, quite probably, the best test of the hypothesis put forth by Bazant et al. that we will ever see, barring the sudden appearance of an eccentric billionaire who owns both a plane and a building he doesn't mind sacrificing for the sake of science.

Science is never perfect, which is why we always look for better experiments, better tools, better information. But just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean it's useless either.

 

[jaydeehess]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syzKBBB_THE

One interesting item I noticed.
If you pause the video at 5 seconds you notice that all of the columns that have been pulled are all deforming in the same direction(top of the bending section is moving to the right) however the upper portion displays no visible sideways motion.

 

[alienentity]

By pointing out that the top of the WTC was asymmetrical that is another problem with comparing this video with the WTC. The technique used in this video has a symmetrical top smashing down causing symmetrical collapse beneath it. In the case of WTC we have an asymmetrical top section smashing down to cause a symmetrical collapse. Hope this helps.

With due respect, you've just moved the goalpost. You allow that the collapses were not initially symmetrical - unlike verinage CD.

So you actually agree with my point. That should have ended it, but you now claim that the rest of the collapse WAS symmetrical.

You will need to back up your claim with some evidence in order to give it credence. You may want to refer to a definition of symmetry/symmetrical and think carefully before offering your answer.

I'll include it for your convenience:

Symmetrical
characterized by or exhibiting symmetry; well-proportioned, as a body or whole; regular in form or arrangement of corresponding parts.

Personally I think it's a waste of time to attempt to describe the tower collapses as symmetrical, nor does the relative symmetry have any relevance to Bazant's calculations. But I'll leave it to you to justify your claim.

 

[Edx]

This technique is still a controlled demolition though. I don't see how its disproving anything the troofers say about buildings only collapsing symmetrically by CD.

It does however prove that Gage's indicators of an explosive demolition are nonsense, doesnt it?

It proves that a building can easily pancake crush itself if the floors fail in a certain way. It shows it will create ejections of debris, large dust clouds, rapid collapses.

 

[alienentity]

Yeah, it seems a tad unfair not to allow us to compare a non-explosive top-down collapse in order to verify the physics, while truthers incessantly offer myriad other building fires as 'proofs' the WTC towers couldn't collapse - without getting into the engineering details, of course.
Since no other 110 story steelframe buildings have been struck by 500mph airplanes and survived, these are the only comparisons that can be made. The rub goes both ways.

 

[jaydeehess]

While I am not stating that Mobertermy is a TM I have noted that the TM claims symmetrical collapse when it is convienient to their senario and then claim assymettry 'should' have occured. In fact the collapses were significantly less than symmetric, just ask the people who are taking the Banker's Trust structure down.

While assymettry was the case the TM is quite careful not to define just how much more assymettric it 'should' have been, just that it was not as assymettric as they assume it would.
What do we want to call that? Backseat driving? Monday morning quarterbacking?

 

[jaydeehess]

Yeah, it seems a tad unfair not to allow us to compare a non-explosive top-down collapse in order to verify the physics, while truthers incessantly offer myriad other building fires as 'proofs' the WTC towers couldn't collapse - without getting into the engineering details, of course.
Since no other 110 story steelframe buildings have been struck by 500mph airplanes and survived, these are the only comparisons that can be made. The rub goes both ways.

There are times when the engineering details are important such as in how a structure behaves in severe fire conditions. I marvelled at the TM claiming that the Windsor tower did not suffer global collapse, only local collapse, so the towers should have stood as well. I have never seen that arguement made AND mention the fact that the core columns were concrete, not steel

 

[bardamu]

To put it simply, this demolition doesnt involve explosives yet curiously exhibits all the same indicators of a demolition that Gage says is impossible without explosives.

Better to say it's impossible without human (or divine) intervention.

This technique is still a controlled demolition though. I don't see how its disproving anything the troofers say about buildings only collapsing symmetrically by CD. You haven't proved Bazant was right. Bazant said that 911 occured without CD. The building you show occured with CD. Don't worry this doesn't mean 911 was an inside job, but this by no means shows "bazant was right."

I believe that's one reason why it was rejected by The Heiwa Challenge judge.

This doesn't look like a steel building either.

If it was steel, the building wouldn't have collapsed.

By pointing out that the top of the WTC was asymmetrical that is another problem with comparing this video with the WTC. The technique used in this video has a symmetrical top smashing down causing symmetrical collapse beneath it. In the case of WTC we have an asymmetrical top section smashing down to cause a symmetrical collapse. Hope this helps.

It certainly doesn't help Bazant!

 

[Mobertermy]

"Bazant was right" in the sense that the energy to produce global collapse can be had if a large upper section is allowed to impact the rest of the structure.

In the verniage technique this is accomplished by pulling in the columns at one level which makes the point on those columns at which this is occuring unstable and unable to support the load above that point.

In the WTC towers this was accomplished by the weakening of the coulmns due to initial aircraft impact, heat and the pulling in of the perimeter columns by the sagging floor pans.

One TM adherent is famous (infamous?) for his insistence that a smaller, upper block simply cannot crush down a larger lower block. He says it is impossible thus putting him at direct odds with what Bazant has said.

With the verniage technique we see that Bazant is correct and the other (Heiwa) is incorrect.

Are you are now asking that a historical reference be found in which global collapse is caused by aircraft impact followed by widespread office fires?

The problem of saying that Bazant is correct in this context is that we are using a controlled demolition that has a symmetrical upper block crushing down on a lower block causing collapse. If you look at the WTC its pretty clear that the upper block was not crushing down symmetrically and yet there is still a symmetrical collapse.

 

[Horatius]

The problem of saying that Bazant is correct in this context is that we are using a controlled demolition that has a symmetrical upper block crushing down on a lower block causing collapse. If you look at the WTC its pretty clear that the upper block was not crushing down symmetrically and yet there is still a symmetrical collapse.

But Bazant was dealing with an idealized collapse - he didn't model the exact collapse as it was observed. The truthers insisted that his analysis was incorrect, even when considered in light of this idealized case.

The verinage technique shows that their rejection of his analysis was wrong, plain and simple.

 

[Mobertermy]

It does however prove that Gage's indicators of an explosive demolition are nonsense, doesnt it?

It proves that a building can easily pancake crush itself if the floors fail in a certain way. It shows it will create ejections of debris, large dust clouds, rapid collapses.

Absolutely, if the floors fail in a certain way. Is the building in this video a steel structure though?

 

[Horatius]

To put it simply, this demolition doesnt involve explosives yet curiously exhibits all the same indicators of a demolition that Gage says is impossible without explosives.

Better to say it's impossible without human (or divine) intervention.

So, will you then admit that every truther who points out these indicators as being "proof" or "evidence" of the use of explosives is wrong?

Will you admit that Richard Gage is wrong?

 

[Mobertermy]

With due respect, you've just moved the goalpost. You allow that the collapses were not initially symmetrical - unlike verinage CD.

So you actually agree with my point. That should have ended it, but you now claim that the rest of the collapse WAS symmetrical.

I haven't moved the goalposts at all. Bazant claims that we have an upper block crushing down on the lower structure. Thats what we see here with the verinage, but that is not the case with WTC. Its that simple.

 

[Mobertermy]

So, will you then admit that every truther who points out these indicators as being "proof" or "evidence" of the use of explosives is wrong?

Will you admit that Richard Gage is wrong?

What do you mean admit Richard Gage is wrong? I never said he's right. All I'm saying is that the video posted here doesn't prove Bazant is right. Maybe try not attributing arguments to me that I'm not making alright.

 

[Lak]

Better to say it's impossible without human (or divine) intervention.

And the planes crashing into the towers - that is what triggerred the chain of events leading to the fires in WTC7, and eventually the collapse of the building - were not "human intervention" ?