Bazant was right!! Imagine that

We'll anyway too bad towers 1 & 2 didnt come equipped with full manned A.A guns ontop of each the towers
that would give any incoming aircraft with a target painted on the towers something to think about lol
 
Last edited:
bardamu said:
Imagine an old-fashioned bale of straw about 4ft long. You cut the strings and the bale falls apart into 3 or 4 inch flakes, which you can easily throw into your cow stalls. Now suppose you were walking past the barn just when Leroy decides to throw a bale of straw off the top of the stack. Would you rather be hit on the head by a bale that's had its strings cut or a bale that's still compressed into one solid mass?
Click to expand...

:eye-poppi

Human beings are not comparable to 1000 foot tall buildings. An intact upper block will be resisted by all of the columns in a lower block (which have a large amount of capacity). A broken up upper block will be resisted solely by the floor trusses of a single floor.

Your analogy is backwards.
 
Oh gee omg let me see now, B is the part that get compressed when upper part A decides to come down to greet lower part C, and as matter of fact i have not read much, of Heiwa's work.
 
bardamu said:
Imagine an old-fashioned bale of straw about 4ft long. You cut the strings and the bale falls apart into 3 or 4 inch flakes, which you can easily throw into your cow stalls. Now suppose you were walking past the barn just when Leroy decides to throw a bale of straw off the top of the stack. Would you rather be hit on the head by a bale that's had its strings cut or a bale that's still compressed into one solid mass?
.
Click to expand...

Let's put this into context of the WTC.

The bale is traveling at 500 MPH. In that case I would rather be hit by the intact bale. Why you ask? Because it would kill me instantly instead of the loose bale cutting me to ribbons and dying somewhat slower.

Have you ever seen those pictures of trees with corn stocks (?) sticking out of them or 2x4's sticking out of houses after a tornado? Speed is everything!
 
bardamu said:
Imagine an old-fashioned bale of straw about 4ft long. You cut the strings and the bale falls apart into 3 or 4 inch flakes, which you can easily throw into your cow stalls. Now suppose you were walking past the barn just when Leroy decides to throw a bale of straw off the top of the stack. Would you rather be hit on the head by a bale that's had its strings cut or a bale that's still compressed into one solid mass?.
Click to expand...

Stundie material?
 
bardamu said:
Imagine an old-fashioned bale of straw about 4ft long. You cut the strings and the bale falls apart into 3 or 4 inch flakes, which you can easily throw into your cow stalls. Now suppose you were walking past the barn just when Leroy decides to throw a bale of straw off the top of the stack. Would you rather be hit on the head by a bale that's had its strings cut or a bale that's still compressed into one solid mass?




It appears his agenda is to discuss 9/11 conspiracy theories in a friendly and lively way.
Click to expand...

Meh mock me all you want using sarcasm, but thats what JREF'S are good at right?
 
thecritta said:
Oh gee omg let me see now, B is the part that get compressed when upper part A decides to come down to greet lower part C, and as matter of fact i have not read much, of Heiwa's work.
Click to expand...

thecritta, several posters have taken time to answer the many questions that you posed in your very first post here. Perhaps thanking them and reading the answers would be your best course of action. Unless that's not why you are here?

Your behavior is puzzling. Are you here because you wanted people with knowledge of engineering and physics to answer your questions? If not, what is your motivation?
 
Ok yes i understand the replies people have given me quiet well and yes
thankyou, i seem to be interpreting things wrong.

:o:o:o:):):)
 
Just a heads-up, if you get answers from 'bardamu' they are wrong. He / she / it is just trolling here and imagines that there were no planes and 9/11 was a computer simulation. Really.
 
thecritta said:
Ok yes i understand the replies people have given me quiet well and yes
thankyou, i seem to be interpreting things wrong.

:o:o:o:):):)
Click to expand...

You will get a mix of serious and non-serious answers. Hopefully, as a fairly new poster, you'll get more serious ones than not. Please focus on those.

You have to understand that many posters in this sub forum have been debating these points for some time. In the last few years, there have been countless posters who have come to the boards saying they were 'just asking questions' about 9/11 and who claimed to have no strong point of view. After a time, it became clear that many of those posters -- most in fact -- were simply not being honest about their motives. They also receycle talking points that have been debated, discussed, and demolished dozens of times in the past.

So you will hit a bit of collateral damage until people are more sure you are sincere. Some of the posters who have been through that routine several times before will not have the patience or amount of civlity that they may have had in 2005. But that will change if they are convinced you are not playing games. If you can remain civil, almost everyone here will return the compliment. On the other hand, I am and will remain a complete bastard, but that's nothing personal. I just gotta be me.
 
thecritta said:
Ok yes i understand the replies people have given me quiet well and yes
thankyou, i seem to be interpreting things wrong.

:o:o:o:):):)
Click to expand...

You've just done what the vast majority of "truthers" cannot do: admit a mistake. It's a very difficult thing for some people to do, but it is absolutely necessary to learning. It takes guts and I congratulate you.

Bazant's paper made sense to only a few people here (myself and some of the other engineering minded people). But we were Bazant's target audience; the common layperson is not the target audience of Bazant's paper. You shouldn't expect to be able to read through his paper and understand everything in it. You're not supposed to be able to. You can, however, ask questions about it and expect reasonable responses from people who do understand the subject of engineering. Most people in this subforum have learned a great deal about Bazant's paper (and engineering in general) by doing this.

But beware "truther" websites talking about Bazant's paper. They're not engineers, they don't have the education to truly understand what is being discussed. To make matters worse, they all have a bias towards trying to find something wrong with either the math or the concept. The most intellectually honest of "truthers" will mistake items they don't understand for errors on Bazant's part. The less honest, and more common, "truther" will intentionally quote mine to obfuscate what the paper is really about for their followers.

Bazant's paper is not supposed to be a model of what actually happened. It's a model of whether or not the building would collapse in a scenario that is most conservative towards collapse arrest. He explains exactly why he does this at the beginning of the paper. Anyone who tells you that Bazant's paper is invalid because the actual event didn't occur exactly as modeled in the paper is either lying to you or ignorant and never read the paper.
 
bill smith said:
You may notice that none of the forum debunker-scientists have dared tackle his paper on the other thread despite having had more than 24 hours. to do so
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162328&page=3
Click to expand...
Nothing to debunk Bill.

The last line in his "paper" shows he does not understand the model. (to all but his "sheep" followers)

"But what the BLGB theory and model postulate cannot be seen on any videos of the WTC1 destruction. Simple observations of any video of the WTC1 destruction prove the BLGB model wrong.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom