Bazant was right!! Imagine that

NoZed Avenger said:
Despite my conviction that I am simply another hopeless social retard, I will make a stab at this.

I am not a mathy person or a science guy, so maybe I can help bridge the gap between you and the people spending time on this.

First, let's see if everyone is communicating. This is my lay understanding. Let me break this out into discrete steps and please tell me what you believe is incorrect or needs adjustment (open to anyone else who feels I am going wrong):

(1) Bazant was not creating a model for the Towers' collapse.
(2) Bazant was creating a model to test if a collapse would occur if an upper area were dropped straight onto the intact floors beneath.
(3) Bazant concluded a collapse would occur, even in those circumstances.
(4) The *actual* circumstances were even more favorable for collapse than his model.
(5) Whether "intact" or not, a large volume of stuff was dropped onto lower floors.
(6) Whether "symmetrical" or not, a large volume of stuff was dropped onto lower floors
(7) The fact that the load was not dropped straight down onto the supporting members below it actually made the collapse more likely by stressing weaker elements.

As for the video and the non-explosive demolition,

(8) it provides some support for Bazant's theoretical work, in that it does successfully show explosives and thermite were not necessary to cause a collapse under similar (though not identical) circumstances.



Are we together so far? If so, the contention from the JREF-centric crowd is that the differences you point to -- the lack of symmetry, for example -- are, *at best*, irrelevant to the cause-and-effect analysis. They actually make the case for a collapse without explosives stronger.

Whether you agree or disagree with the end conclusion, is the argument at least laid out in a clear manner?
Click to expand...

1) Ok
2) That's my biggest problem. The upper block on 911 does not drop straight onto the lower block. Bazants theory is like communism...might look good on paper, not alot of real world value.
3) OK
4) Except that number 2 is not in effect so his theory has no application whatsoever to the real world events of that day.
5) Intact vs not intact matters. I'd rather someone drop fifty punds of sand on my head than a fifty pound lead ball. On 911 upper portion doesnt appear intact.
6) But Bazant said it was symmetrical didnt he?
7) See 6.
8) Key features of Bazants theory are missing though. This is a necessary ingredient if I am not mistaken: Intact upper block crushing straight down. Thats not just something irrelevant.
 
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...

You are missing two things. Bazant said upper section would crush straight down. Said upper section was intact. I am not saying bazants model is wrong. I'm saying it has no application to what happened on 911 since those two elements were missing. The OP shows an intact upper block crushing straight down therefore Bazant limit case model proven correct. WTC on 911 shows not-intact upper portion that isnt crushing straight down. Therefore: Bazant model has no application to 911.
 
Mobertermy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, it does prove 9/11 was not an inside job, and that explosives were not used. At all.

Their argument is that there is no way that the top portion of a building could possibly crush the bottom section of a building without explosives being involved.

Well, the Verniage (sp?) technique proves that it CAN happen using just the weight of the building.

Now, you mention concrete. Good point. Concrete is mucher stronger than a steel building in general. Why do you think they make most buildings in Florida out of concrete? Because its very strong, and resists outside forces well.

So, in conclusion, it proves that it can be done without explosives, with just the weight of the building. No explosives needed.

PS. They didn't fund huge hydrolic pumps and rams in the TT's, so we caan conclusively rule that out.
 
Are you honestly asking me what the word symmetrical means? Look it up online if you dont know the meaning.
 
Mobertermy said:
You are aware that what you bolded was a visual debunk of a CD that was itself a CD.
Click to expand...

You are aware that no explosives were used in that demolition. You are aware that no massive hydraulic pumps were found in the debris pile.

I think we can stop pretending this guy isn't a "Truther", now.
 
Mobertermy said:
When I look at the footage of WTC I dont see an intact upper block crushing straight down like I see in the verinage video...do you?
Click to expand...

Yes. Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

The top section was supported by the middle section. When the middle section gave way, where did the top section go?

Down.

For the love of the Flying Spagetti Monster.... Why does all this horse**** sound so framilliar???
 
Mobertermy said:
Are you honestly asking me what the word symmetrical means? Look it up online if you dont know the meaning.
Click to expand...

Seeing as how there was a demonstrable tilt of the upper block, the collapse was clearly not symmetrical in any meaningful way. But forget that. Can you tell us what the implications of the towers' collapse being supposedly symmetrical are? I'm under the impression that it's just a Truther canard thrown out there to bull**** people into thinking there is something out of the ordinary about the collapses as if symmetry were somehow abnormal. Prove me wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom