Bazant was right!! Imagine that

A W Smith said:
well actually its in the thread title
Click to expand...


True, but he or she didn't say what exactly Bazant was right about. :p


ETA: Maybe we should come up with a better wording of the OP, something along the lines of "A global collapse is inevitable when X conditions are present, as can be shown in the following videos".

Of course, that would summon the shade of Heiwa, and I don't think I could stand that for very long...
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
The person that started the thread was talking specifically about explosives used in CD, although it was worded a little misleadingly. No mention of Bazant.
Click to expand...

No mention of Bazant except that the title of the thread was "Bazant was right!!!"
 
Hokulele said:
So are you claiming that Bazant's calculations were wrong?
Click to expand...

Who cares? His calculations can be right, wrong, or invent a whole new mathematics. Without the intact upper block crushing straight down it doesn't matter what his calculations are....thats what his calculations are calculating. I really hope you are not out there arguing with truthers using Bazant as your basis as to why they are wrong.
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
No mention of Bazant except that the title of the thread was "Bazant was right!!!"
Click to expand...

When you show any interest in understanding what you're discussing please let us know. :\
The discussion is becoming rather pointless since you're making an argument based on a malformed understanding of what you're talking about.

You've been asked by several people already which scenario would be more biased toward collapse arrest. Would you agree with the assessment that Bazant intentionally biased his model in favor of collapse arrest or not? You're answer will tell us how much you actually understand about the model, rather than enlighten everyone about the problems you have with how people interpret his work. :\

Are you going to fill in this blank or not?
 
Mobertermy said:
Who cares? His calculations can be right, wrong, or invent a whole new mathematics. Without the intact upper block crushing straight down it doesn't matter what his calculations are.
Click to expand...


This is why I, and others, have asked you if you believe that the collapse as seen would be more or less likely to self-arrest than Bazant's model. Do you have an answer for this?

ETA: @ Grizzly Bear: Jinx! You owe me a Coke.
 
tuc0 said:
Only truthers claim that Bažant's model "explains WTC".

No. One. Else.
Click to expand...

Mobertermy said:
Wait. Is the person that started this thread a truther?
Click to expand...
From the OP (bolding mine):
Hornit said:
Gee looks very much like the WTC's doens't it? An excellent visual debunk of CD and how once the collpase begins it ain't gonna stop! And they did it on a much smaller building to boot!!!
Click to expand...

I believe the inability of the collapse to arrest itself is the parallel being drawn between the Bazant model, the collapse shown in the linked video, and the WTC collapses. At no point does the OP make an assertion that the Bazant model does, or was meant to, "explain" either WTC collapse. I can't imagine why anyone would argue otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Lets try this:

Bazant's model shows that under the best of circumstances, That being a column end on column end impact,. That the towers could not arrest collapse.

Truthers theorize, that you could drop an intact upper section on an intact lower section. (From 2 miles up in banned forum member "heiwas" case) and the collapse would immediately arrest

The OP shows an example of collapse from an intact upper section impacting an intact and not weakened lower section.


Therefore: Bazant limiting case model proven correct.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
When you show any interest in understanding what you're discussing please let us know. :\
The discussion is becoming rather pointless since you're making an argument based on a malformed understanding of what you're talking about.

You've been asked by several people already which scenario would be more biased toward collapse arrest. Would you agree with the assessment that Bazant intentionally biased his model in favor of collapse arrest or not? You're answer will tell us how much you actually understand about the model, rather than enlighten everyone about the problems you have with how people interpret his work. :\

Are you going to fill in this blank or not?
Click to expand...


It doesn't ****ing matter! His model requires an intact upper block crushing straight down. Without that as the starting point you aren't even discussing Bazant's model...you'd be discussing some completely other model which I'm all for because at least then you'd be talking about what actually occured on 911 and not giving truthers a nice little strawman to argue against. Congrats.
 
johnny karate said:
From the OP (bolding mine):


I believe the inability of the collapse to arrest itself is the parallel being drawn between the Bazant model and the collapse shown in the linked video. At no point does the OP make an assertion that the Bazant model is, or was meant to be, an exact recreation of either WTC collapse. I can't imagine why ayone would argue otherwise.
Click to expand...


Maybe because he explicitly says it looks alot like the WTC. Which is true of WTC7 but not true of 1 and 2. And no one has ever used Bazant to explain WTC 7 so I really dont see how the OP has made anything but a bad argument and the fact that you all have jumped on board to protect him mkaes me wonder exactly what type of group think is going on here.
 
A W Smith said:
Lets try this:

Bazant's model shows that under the best of circumstances, That being a column end on column end impact,. That the towers could not arrest collapse.

Truthers theorize, that you could drop an intact upper section on an intact lower section. (From 2 miles up in banned forum member "heiwas" case) and the collapse would immediately arrest

The OP shows an example of collapse from an intact upper section impacting an intact and not weakened lower section.


Therefore: Bazant limiting case model proven correct.
Click to expand...

A W. I'm not to familar with Heiwa but it sounds like he is saying that Bazants calculations are incorrect. Is that right?
 
i give up

facepalm2ly3.jpg
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
It doesn't ****ing matter! His model requires an intact upper block crushing straight down. Without that as the starting point you aren't even discussing Bazant's model...you'd be discussing some completely other model which I'm all for because at least then you'd be talking about what actually occured on 911 and not giving truthers a nice little strawman to argue against. Congrats.
Click to expand...

I'll ask you again: do you understand what a limiting case is? Do you understand what it means to envelope a problem?
 
Mobertermy, it would help things if you could calm down and answer the simple questions that were directed towards you. Answering "It doesn't ****ing matter!" and name-calling is really not helpful.

Here - try to answer this one.

Hokulele said:
This is why I, and others, have asked you if you believe that the collapse as seen would be more or less likely to self-arrest than Bazant's model. Do you have an answer for this?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom