• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

carlitos said:
Yeah. That's why I sort of disagree with your earlier post that the polarization MT attracts is merely his being a victim of the "debunker" mindset. His approach is equally to blame. As is his "no claim" position.
Click to expand...
Sure. I am well aware of the two sides of bias AND the two sides of personalised attacks. Hence my previous comments - without going back and checking every word - were only intended to refer to the bits of discussion where MT et al happen to be right.

So if 'A Truther' posted something along this style "Abusive comment #1, snide remark #2, the cloudless sky is blue, innuendo about your intelligence #3, abusive comment #4....."

...if I responded at all I would usually ignore all the abusive comments and such like rubbish and agree with "the cloudless sky is blue".

...and would disagree with anyone who claimed 'A Truther' was obsessed with CD or any other matter not stated in the discussion.

Certainly if I came to this forum with a known record of favouring 'truther conspiracies' I would need to think long and hard before I indulged in personal insults, snide comments and such if my intention was to persuade people to my point of view. On the other hand if my intention was to stir up responses by 'jerking chains'....
 
A little too late for that, Ozeco, but consider #2 on his second list: Smiling.

I'm actually smiling right now.

I'll be smiling pretty much the whole time as I assemble a final collection of arguments against BV, BL and BLGB.


I have literally thousands of posts with the JREF forum that botch the Bazant papers so badly that the Author himself wouldn't recognize your Frankenstein hybrid misrepresentation as being in any way related to his writings.


Open mouth, insert foot...that sort of thing.




Anyway, I'll leave some time for R Mackey to respond.
 
Major_Tom said:
... I'll be smiling pretty much the whole time as I assemble a final collection of arguments against BV, BL and BLGB.


I have literally thousands of posts with the JREF forum that botch the Bazant papers so badly that the Author himself wouldn't recognize your Frankenstein hybrid misrepresentation as being in any way related to his writings.

...
Click to expand...
Thousands of posts which amount to nonsense and delusions. To prove, publish your collected poppycock and send it to an engineering journal. It will be identified as nonsense. Bazant's work, real world; Major Tom's work, fantasy-land of 911 truth. Feel free to prove me wrong by publishing your extensive work. When may that happen? Botch on. ? that was funny, and your CD delusion continues unabated.
 
ozeco41 said:
...and would disagree with anyone who claimed 'A Truther' was obsessed with CD or any other matter not stated in the discussion.
Click to expand...
Minor quibble, but the phrase "demolition team" was in Major_Tom's paper. It seemed to be a non-sequitur when I read it. It's the very last paragraph of conclusions.

If unassisted ROOSD is possible, is this proof that the collapses were natural?

Not at all. It means that in the WTC1, 2 design a runaway destruction potential has always existed in the OOS spaces completely surrounding the cores which a demolition team can exploit by setting up sufficient initial conditions higher in the towers.

This process, once set in motion, can be used to destroy all OOS space and strip the 4 perimeter walls from all support all the way to earth. If vertical seams were cut down the perimeter walls along spandrel bolt lines both the entire OOS flooring system and all perimeter walls can be effectively demolished leaving only a large remnant of the intact core remaining (as observed).

By choosing perimeter seams carefully, all OOS contents and the entire perimeter can be intentionally dropped and steered to earth as desired in a remarkably controlled, orderly fashion
Click to expand...
.

It's no indication of 'obsession' but it's a weird thing to put into a technical paper, when no evidence exists for such a thing. May as well have mentioned Godzilla or blamed it on God's vengeance. As ever though, he makes no claim, proposes no hypothesis, and affects the real world understanding of events in no way at all.
 
carlitos said:
Minor quibble, but the phrase "demolition team" was in Major_Tom's paper. It seemed to be a non-sequitur when I read it. It's the very last paragraph of conclusions.

It's no indication of 'obsession' but it's a weird thing to put into a technical paper, when no evidence exists for such a thing. May as well have mentioned Godzilla or blamed it on God's vengeance. As ever though, he makes no claim, proposes no hypothesis, and affects the real world understanding of events in no way at all.
Click to expand...
Playing Devil's Advocate I make an alternate suggestion.

The "Big Issue" about WTC collapses on 9/11 is the question "Why did the buildings collapse completely?" or words to that effect. In that context and from at least 2006 to the present time one of the top level questions is "Was there demolition?" (Or to be less restrictive "Was there Human Assistance?")

So for the any current debate to be pure it has to include recognition that 'demolition' is a question in the public arena of debate. Certainly it can be dismissed immediately provided the existence of the question has been recognised.

It is acceptable for those actively involved in 9/11 debate to pass over demolition because they and their readers are aware of the evidence against. Not so for the general lay public and I include persons coming new to 9/11 Internet debate.

If you were to read many of my posts on other forums you would see that I usually acknowledge 'demolition' and then dismiss claiming that the evidence exists but without repeating the evidence.

And Major_Tom's 'throw away' line can be seen in that setting. Remember that his 'ROOSD' shows that there was no need for demolition in the global or 'progressive' collapse. Given that he is seen as 'pro-demolition' it is a significant step for him to say 'not needed because of ROOSD'. In fact it can be seen as a credible demonstration of objectivity.

/EndDevilsAdvocacy.
:rolleyes:
 
3 Bazant Papers on WTC Debunked

Bazant's collapse progression model debunked.




The 4 papers on the WTC collapses by Dr Bazant are listed below:

2002: (BZ) Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis

Zdenek P. Bazant and Yong Zhou

available here:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf


2007: (BV) Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World
Trade Center and Building Demolitions

Zdenek P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure

available here:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf


2007 (BL): Closure to “Mechanics of Progressive
Collapse: Learning from World Trade
Center and Building Demolitions” by
Zdenek P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure

Zdeněk P. Bažant and Jia-Liang Le

available here:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25.pdf


2008: (BLGB) What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York

Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David B. Benson

available here:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/476 WTC collapse.pdf[/i]




Premises:

1) 3 of the 4 Bazant papers on the WTC collapses (BV, BL and BLGB) are based on a fundamentally incorrect collapse progression model.

2) These faulty papers made it through the peer review process, yet they are fundamentally incorrect and, funny enough, very few people seemed to notice.


Suggested corrections:

All 3 incorrect papers explicitly claim to prove that allegations of controlled demolition on 9-11-01 are baseless by utilizing the fundamentally incorrect collapse progression model. These are false statements and should be retracted by their respective Authors. The papers should be corrected (impossible, too flawed) or the errors should be acknowledged publicly by the Authors to correct the historic record.




Explanations of the fundamental mistakes in each paper are available in the form of a review by me, Major_Tom, also known by my middle name, "Anonymous", here:

Review of Bazant Zhou
at: http://the911forum.freeforums.org/review-of-bazant-and-zhou-t375.html#p11103

Review of Bazant and Verdure
at: http://the911forum.freeforums.org/review-of-bazant-and-verdure-t378.html#p11179

Review of Bazant and Le
at: http://the911forum.freeforums.org/review-of-bazant-and-le-t453.html#p14143

Review of Bazant, Le, Greening, Benson
at: http://the911forum.freeforums.org/review-of-bazant-le-greening-benson-t379.html#p11206



Also of note: The only known collapse progression model that seems to correctly match all observables in the WTC twin towers is the OOS Collapse Progression Model,

available here:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/oos-collapse-model-t361.html#p10283
 
Last edited:
10 years of failure are a lock for CD delusion. If the work Major Tom presents was valid, it would be published.

No wonder you are not published with your idiotic obsession with Bazant fueled by the moronic delusion of CD.

When will you have some differential equations to go with your nonsense?

After review your work, I have a few observations and questions. Where did you get your engineering degree? You might want to see if you can get your money back. It was funny. You failed. Your OP is essentially a lie.
 
Last edited:
Major_Tom said:
Bazant's collapse progression model debunked.




The 4 papers on the WTC collapses by Dr Bazant are listed below:

2002: (BZ) Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis

Zdenek P. Bazant and Yong Zhou

available here:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf


2007: (BV) Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World
Trade Center and Building Demolitions

Zdenek P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure

available here:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf


2007 (BL): Closure to “Mechanics of Progressive
Collapse: Learning from World Trade
Center and Building Demolitions” by
Zdenek P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure

Zdeněk P. Bažant and Jia-Liang Le

available here:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25.pdf


2008: (BLGB) What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York

Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David B. Benson

available here:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/476 WTC collapse.pdf[/i]




Premises:

1) 3 of the 4 Bazant papers on the WTC collapses (BV, BL and BLGB) are based on a fundamentally incorrect collapse progression model.

2) These faulty papers made it through the peer review process, yet they are fundamentally incorrect and, funny enough, very few people seemed to notice.


Suggested corrections:

All 3 incorrect papers explicitly claim to prove that allegations of controlled demolition on 9-11-01 are baseless by utilizing the fundamentally incorrect collapse progression model. These are false statements and should be retracted by their respective Authors. The papers should be corrected (impossible, too flawed) or the errors should be acknowledged publicly by the Authors to correct the historic record.




Explanations of the fundamental mistakes in each paper are available in the form of a review by me, Major_Tom, also known by my middle name, "Anonymous", here:

Review of Bazant Zhou
at: http://the911forum.freeforums.org/review-of-bazant-and-zhou-t375.html#p11103

Review of Bazant and Verdure
at: http://the911forum.freeforums.org/review-of-bazant-and-verdure-t378.html#p11179

Review of Bazant and Le
at: http://the911forum.freeforums.org/review-of-bazant-and-le-t453.html#p14143

Review of Bazant, Le, Greening, Benson
at: http://the911forum.freeforums.org/review-of-bazant-le-greening-benson-t379.html#p11206



Also of note: The only known collapse progression model that seems to correctly match all observables in the WTC twin towers is the OOS Collapse Progression Model,

available here:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/oos-collapse-model-t361.html#p10283
Click to expand...

Thank you. Let us know as soon as you have submitted and had accepted those papers in the journal of ASCE or equvalent. Until that day........
 
Major_Tom said:
Bazant's collapse progression model debunked.........
[EDITED]........
Premises:

1) 3 of the 4 Bazant papers on the WTC collapses (BV, BL and BLGB) are based on a fundamentally incorrect collapse progression model.

2) These faulty papers made it through the peer review process, yet they are fundamentally incorrect and, funny enough, very few people seemed to notice.


Suggested corrections:

All 3 incorrect papers explicitly claim to prove that allegations of controlled demolition on 9-11-01 are baseless by utilizing the fundamentally incorrect collapse progression model. These are false statements and should be retracted by their respective Authors. The papers should be corrected (impossible, too flawed) or the errors should be acknowledged publicly by the Authors to correct the historic record. .........
[EDITED]........
Also of note: The only known collapse progression model that seems to correctly match all observables in the WTC twin towers is the OOS Collapse Progression Model, ....
Click to expand...

Just a few brief comments Major_Tom:
  1. You are making some bold claims - especially posting it on this forum. I predict a lot of noise will cloud any reasoned debate. :rolleyes:
  2. I will need to recheck the various Bazant papers BUT if he did claim to have shown that there was no demolition I would say that he went too far. The most that an explanation of collapse mechanisms can show is that demolition was not needed. It cannot negate demolition. However the arguments against 'human assitance' are strongest in the domain of logistic and security impossibility using that word in its normal lay person usage.
  3. Check your claim for exclusivity and primacy of 'OOS Collapse Progression Model'. Sure the titles 'OOS' or 'ROOSD' seem to be yours but I published explanations early 2008 on the former Richard Dawkins' forum which are equivalent to OOS/ROOSD on all the key parameters. (EDIT: And I am sure there were others.) :rolleyes:
    AND
  4. On peer review' - The test of accuracy of any technical claim is "Is the claim correct?" not "Has it been peer reviewed?" 'Peer review' is only one process which may assist in forming an opinion as to accuracy or otherwise. It is certainly no guarantee.
Otherwise my best wishes as you start this venture. My own interest, as previously stated several times, currently goes no further than knowing the limits of applicability of Bazant's various papers to the collapses at WTC on 9/11.
 
Last edited:
Funny...ramblings online constitute a valid criticism of legitimate studies made by a much respected authority published in highly revered academic journals, but the smoke and mirror show of the good Dr. Jones and company deserve nothing but the utmost attention and scrutiny.
 
MT,

Why don't you write a discussion and submit it? Show Bazant et al that they are wrong and why?

I mean, really, all the time you waste online could be put to better use. I've as you and some of the others to do the same, but have been ignored for the most part. Do you ignore me because I am not an engineer?

So, quit wasting time, and get to it. Heiwa could do it, so can you.
 
ozeco41 said:
Just a few brief comments Major_Tom:
  1. You are making some bold claims - especially posting it on this forum. I predict a lot of noise will cloud any reasoned debate. :rolleyes:
  2. ...
Click to expand...
It takes very short time to read his nonsense. That is what it is - and that is the reasoned debate part.

If Major Tom was qualified to review Bazant's work, he would not have the moronic CD delusion.

How does Major Tom's failed effort relate to 911 conspiracy theories? The only connection is, Major Tom has delusions of CD so he has to attack Bazant.

Major Tom has a lot of this stuff, he should put it all in a letter, submit it to a journal and learn from Bazant why it was bad idea skipping differential equations and not getting an engineering degree.
 
Last edited:
???

David Benson (born David Hodgson on 11 January 1962) is an English character actor, writer and comedian. He was born in Oxford, England and has a twin sister Miranda and an older brother Jonathan. He changed his surname in 1996 on joining Equity, the actors trade union. He was educated at Park Hall Secondary Modern, in Castle Bromwich, Warwickshire and at Sutton Coldfield College of Further Education. He went on to gain a Degree in Drama and Theatre Studies at the Royal Holloway College, University of London. He moved to Edinburgh in 1985 where he lived until 2001, when he moved to London where he now resides.[1]
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom