Because it's been claimed that Bazant's papers prove the towers could have collapsed the way they did without the use of explosives.
OOS Collapse Propagation Model
- Thread starter Major_Tom
- Start date
- Status
Because it's been claimed that Bazant's papers prove the towers could have collapsed the way they did without the use of explosives.
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
Any evidence that this claim is wrong?
A W Smith
Philosopher
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
*Sigh*
Bazant's work shows that there's enough potential energy available to cause a collapse to continue all the way the ground once it starts. That's how it eliminates explosives: None would be needed. Once the structure fails in the fire zones, the acceleration of the falling upper parts of the buildings are sufficient to overcome what resistance the columns below provide. Ergo, you don't need explosives because the rest of the structure would already fail due to the amount of momentum already being generated.
Hypothetically, one can argue that Bazant allows for explosives to have been used to start things in the collapse initiation zone. But given that those were the fire and impact zones in both towers (and given that steel was recovered from those areas and show no signs of such use), I'd love to see someone actually make that argument fly. So far, none have.
Bazant's work shows that there's enough potential energy available to cause a collapse to continue all the way the ground once it starts. That's how it eliminates explosives: None would be needed. Once the structure fails in the fire zones, the acceleration of the falling upper parts of the buildings are sufficient to overcome what resistance the columns below provide. Ergo, you don't need explosives because the rest of the structure would already fail due to the amount of momentum already being generated.
Hypothetically, one can argue that Bazant allows for explosives to have been used to start things in the collapse initiation zone. But given that those were the fire and impact zones in both towers (and given that steel was recovered from those areas and show no signs of such use), I'd love to see someone actually make that argument fly. So far, none have.
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
I've asked before but still have not got a straight answer.......what does it matter if you Bazant and the man in the moon have the exact mechanism of the collapse right?
Whats important is what initiated the event ............I say large plane full of fuel, you say ...............? Lets cut to the chase and stop obsessing of unimportant details.
Carll68, I asked R Mackey: ""Is there any way, by using any of Dr Bazant's arguments about WTC1 in any of his papers, to distinguish between a natural collapse and a CD which takes advantage of ROOSD? "
Saying "no", or quoting the sections from the paper that can be used for such a purpose, would be pretty embarrassing, so instead he gave the 4 point comment you mentioned.
Consider the second point:
2. The closest there has ever been was a belief that only explosives would cause collapses like that.
I'd say this is wrong. The strongest hint that CD occurred on 9-11-01 is that WTC7 fell as if it's columns turned into cooked linguini.
I asked a specific question about a specific paper. He obviously did not answer the question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Carlitos says: "Please calculate the minimal explosives required, including their likely decibel levels. "
Wouldn't you need to know the probable targets first? Let's say we both agree the probable targets would be core columns. How can you even attempt an estimate if you cannot answer the following questions:
1) Were the core columns (CC) around the 98th floor box columns or H beams?
2) Each column section is about 36 ft long, spanning 3 floors. How were the columns connected to each other at that elevation? Were they welded, bolted or both?
3) Were the CC to CC connections for adjacent columns staggered relative to each other, or are the CC to CC connections for all 47 CCs at the exact same elevations?
4) If the connections for all 47 CCs were at the exact same elevations, on which floors are they located around the collapse initiation area.
I'm sure you will agree that blowing the weld of a box column is much louder than doing so for a H beam.
Can you imagine if we were to find that all 47 CCs have bolted connections at the exact same elevation right through the 98th floor, where we all see collapse initiation begin?
So the questions above need to be answered before anyone can attempt to estimate decibel levels.
I know how to answer each of those questions, but I'd like to see you or others from this forum do it first. Some of you may claim to have looked into the matter previously and have ruled out CD based on your research. If you or others here cannot answer them, please let me know by indicating clearly that you do not know the answers.
I won't do your research for you. You claim to have studied the subject before arriving at a conclusion. R Mackey claims to rule out CD by diligent application of the scientific method.
Please tell me the nature and location of the CC connections around the 98th floor, the most likely target of an attack. They are hard questions so I don't judge anyone who cannot answer them. But if you cannot answer them, I doubt if you've seriously looked into the question at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Carlitos, does the quote function in this forum allow a person to quote individual sentences within a post? If so, let me know how. Quotation marks " " have been a standard in literature for a long, long time. Let me know why quotation marks, found in pretty much any book, don't work for you and I'll try to adjust.
Saying "no", or quoting the sections from the paper that can be used for such a purpose, would be pretty embarrassing, so instead he gave the 4 point comment you mentioned.
Consider the second point:
2. The closest there has ever been was a belief that only explosives would cause collapses like that.
I'd say this is wrong. The strongest hint that CD occurred on 9-11-01 is that WTC7 fell as if it's columns turned into cooked linguini.
I asked a specific question about a specific paper. He obviously did not answer the question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Carlitos says: "Please calculate the minimal explosives required, including their likely decibel levels. "
Wouldn't you need to know the probable targets first? Let's say we both agree the probable targets would be core columns. How can you even attempt an estimate if you cannot answer the following questions:
1) Were the core columns (CC) around the 98th floor box columns or H beams?
2) Each column section is about 36 ft long, spanning 3 floors. How were the columns connected to each other at that elevation? Were they welded, bolted or both?
3) Were the CC to CC connections for adjacent columns staggered relative to each other, or are the CC to CC connections for all 47 CCs at the exact same elevations?
4) If the connections for all 47 CCs were at the exact same elevations, on which floors are they located around the collapse initiation area.
I'm sure you will agree that blowing the weld of a box column is much louder than doing so for a H beam.
Can you imagine if we were to find that all 47 CCs have bolted connections at the exact same elevation right through the 98th floor, where we all see collapse initiation begin?
So the questions above need to be answered before anyone can attempt to estimate decibel levels.
I know how to answer each of those questions, but I'd like to see you or others from this forum do it first. Some of you may claim to have looked into the matter previously and have ruled out CD based on your research. If you or others here cannot answer them, please let me know by indicating clearly that you do not know the answers.
I won't do your research for you. You claim to have studied the subject before arriving at a conclusion. R Mackey claims to rule out CD by diligent application of the scientific method.
Please tell me the nature and location of the CC connections around the 98th floor, the most likely target of an attack. They are hard questions so I don't judge anyone who cannot answer them. But if you cannot answer them, I doubt if you've seriously looked into the question at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Carlitos, does the quote function in this forum allow a person to quote individual sentences within a post? If so, let me know how. Quotation marks " " have been a standard in literature for a long, long time. Let me know why quotation marks, found in pretty much any book, don't work for you and I'll try to adjust.
Sheeples asks: "I've asked before but still have not got a straight answer.......what does it matter if you Bazant and the man in the moon have the exact mechanism of the collapse right?"
On this point you are right, but please notice how important it is to R Mackey, NB and others. Do you see them admitting some of the more glaring mistakes exist? Why not?
Dr Bazant's papers serve as a type of "Bible" for many people in your own forum. Not to you, but to many of your fellow posters. I agree with you so perhaps your question is best addressed to those who see a perfection in these papers which does not exist.
Why do I press the issue? To expose that Dr Bazant is not perfect and makes some rather absurd arguments which your fellow posters defend with the fervor of a Fundamentalist Christian defending his Bible.
You may see that but they cannot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A question for Myriad or other moderators: One of the authors of the paper is Frank Greening. I know he was kicked out of this forum. To what degree can I quote him or talk about him in this thread as one of the authors of a paper under discussion?
On this point you are right, but please notice how important it is to R Mackey, NB and others. Do you see them admitting some of the more glaring mistakes exist? Why not?
Dr Bazant's papers serve as a type of "Bible" for many people in your own forum. Not to you, but to many of your fellow posters. I agree with you so perhaps your question is best addressed to those who see a perfection in these papers which does not exist.
Why do I press the issue? To expose that Dr Bazant is not perfect and makes some rather absurd arguments which your fellow posters defend with the fervor of a Fundamentalist Christian defending his Bible.
You may see that but they cannot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A question for Myriad or other moderators: One of the authors of the paper is Frank Greening. I know he was kicked out of this forum. To what degree can I quote him or talk about him in this thread as one of the authors of a paper under discussion?
Last edited:
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
What did Dr. Bazant say when you contacted him?
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
You do remember there were two towers don't you?
PS WTC7 is nothing to do with the Bazant stuff, what it looks like means nothing when looking at the Twin Towers.
Bazant relies on NIST's explanation for collapse initiation. Even if you believe that both NIST and Bazant are right, it's wrong to say Bazant's papers on their own prove controlled demolition wasn't necessary.
LOL, you forgot to read the paper in question. This is super job supporting CD and a big reason no Pulitzer Prizes will be coming 911 truth way.
What engineering school did you guys go to?
This has to be comedy; right? You know Bazant said this in one of the papers sourced by Tom?
The evidence proves the delusion of CD false.
In one of the papers, did you debunk the differential equations yet? When did you take a math course with differential equations?
The funniest part of your post will be and is being torn apart below; why do you insist on not reading, not knowing and not caring about facts and evidence, logic and critical thinking?
Why do you post nonsense; you will learn below the first paper done by Bazant was published shortly after 911. Why do research when you can post nonsense?
Classic 911 truth cult member tactic; trying to discredit Bazant's work, which they are not qualified to comprehend, as a means of supporting Tom's nonsensical paper.
Last edited:
A W Smith
Philosopher
A W Smith
Philosopher
And how did he "rely" on NIST's explanation for collapse initiation. on or about 9/13/01?
or even march 2002 for that matter?
Last edited:
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
Time Machines.
NWO Inventory 87-15361AC
Carll68
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2009
- Messages
- 324
That is all the farther I was able to get in your post before the fact that you simply were unable to understand the reply typed by Ryan - in what amounts to 3rd grade English comprehension - started to numb my eyes with stupid.
In all seriousness, are you not able to comprehend? Don't answer, you already did answer .....
You and the fraud Rizla2012/Femr2 should study in the same 11th grade physics class together. It certainly would be a big bump for lil' femr2, who is unable to correctly answer a 8th grade physics question -- time and time again.
How is the UFO hoaxing coming along Femrs?
Back on point..I will try to explain - dumb it down if you will - the point Ryan was making:
1) Do you have any evidence, peer reviewed scientific evidence - from anywhere in the free world - that shows explosives were used in the collapse of either WTC1,2 or 7? Not "I looks like a CD" or "It could not have collapsed if it was not a CD"..not speculation..EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES of some sort. Det cords. Residue. Residual effects. Anything verified and peer reviewed
If yes...Please present it.
If No..why not? Then, please see 2
2) There is no, none, nada, zippo, zilch evidence that explosives or any other method of CD was used in the collapse of WTC1, 2 or 7. All you have is belief : "I think looks like a CD so it must have been a CD" ~ "The building would not have collapsed without a CD" etc.
See above #1 if you have evidence.
If not, again ask yourself why not, then move to 3:
3) The Bazant paper (Not 7), and many others, prove beyond any real, true, educated scientific doubt that a CD was not necessary for the towers to fall.
Again, if you have evidence, see #1 above.
If not, ask yourself once more why not, then continue to 4
4) Since there is no evidence of Demolition/Explosives, et.al, and since all you are left with is a belief that the towers could not have collapsed without the use of explosives, and since the Bazant paper and others show that indeed the towers could have (and, in fact, did) collapse without explosives..the subject of explosives is null and void.
I am sure you STILL won't understand.
Beachnut asks: "In one of the papers, did you debunk the differential equations yet? When did you take a math course with differential equations? "
Yes, BV equations 7 and 12 have no value when discussing the towers, though he applies the same equations in BLGB.
When have I taken "a" math course with diff eqs? You have no clue what you are saying, though you are quite proud of your degree.
Yes, BV equations 7 and 12 have no value when discussing the towers, though he applies the same equations in BLGB.
When have I taken "a" math course with diff eqs? You have no clue what you are saying, though you are quite proud of your degree.
Proud, Yes my degree gave me something to think about while weeding the 1/4 mile of asparagus. My grand-daddy always said...
This means you have not taken diff eqs?, or you like to attack Bazant's paper because your CD delusion failed?
Not you, not bio, not the person I asked and not femr2 have taken or have the ability to apply differential equations to refute Bazant's work, or support your failed moronic CD ideas based on lies, hearsay, failed opinions and paranoid conspiracy theories. Should have used some of that engineering stink that failed to take at college.
Where did you go to engineering school? Why are you qualified to attack Bazant's paper when you can't support your own? Where did you get your degree, engineer? Ga Tech? Clemson? MIT? Where did you take a course in differential equations? Better google that one.
I know your paper is nonsense and your conclusion is filled with CD delusions. Did you read your own paper yet?
This is cool, you attack Bazant because he calls your ideas absurd. How is your math going?
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Could you cite where Dr. Bazant uses that term?
As far as I can see you seem to think that the paper says the top stays intact all the way down then is crushed.
- Status