Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

[Patriots4Truth]

I've been following the last several pages of this "debate". I really appreciate how femr2 and Major_Tom put up with the pedantic drivel by delivering better and better evidence just to shut tfk up. Hell, even if you can't see everything behind the dust cloud for a couple seconds I can easily see how the collapse would peel the way it did with all the evidence that has been given in spades.
_____________________________________

Anyways, I'm interested in something Ozeco41 mentioned:
"-Mechanism for providing enough OOS mass early enough in descent for observed ROOSD development still to be confirmed."

(In response to someone else) SanderO of the 9/11freeforums says:

"My answer is that the mass to drive ROOSD came from the floors destroyed which made up the "upper block".

The how this mass came to be dissociated from the lower "block" and therefore above to fall is the matter of "initiation".

NIST comes up with pure hooey about sagging truss pulling the facade in leading to collapsing floors I suppose.

No one, as far as I know, has advanced a comprehensive explanation about how the upper blocks were broken apart."

My question is: besides CD what all possibilities are there to explain how the upper blocks were broken apart? And can we discuss how viable each of these possibilities are?

 

[alienentity]

I've been following the last several pages of this "debate". I really appreciate how femr2 and Major_Tom put up with the pedantic drivel and even backed up their claims. Hell, even if you can't see everything behind the dust cloud for a couple seconds I can easily see how the collapse would peel the way it did with all the evidence they have given.
_____________________________________

Anyways, I'm interested in something Ozeco41 mentioned:
"-Mechanism for providing enough OOS mass early enough in descent for observed ROOSD development still to be confirmed."

(In response to someone else) SanderO of the 9/11freeforums says:

"My answer is that the mass to drive ROOSD came from the floors destroyed which made up the "upper block".

The how this mass came to be dissociated from the lower "block" and therefore above to fall is the matter of "initiation".

NIST comes up with pure hooey about sagging truss pulling the facade in leading to collapsing floors I suppose.

No one, as far as I know, has advanced a comprehensive explanation about how the upper blocks were broken apart."

My question is: besides CD what all possibilities are there to explain how the upper blocks were broken apart? And can we discuss how viable each of these possibilities are?

Just a quick response:
I don't see why you provided the quotation, it adds nothing to the debate except yet another unsubstantiated opinion. The 'pure hooey' comment is unfortunate because the sagging trusses and bowed columns are facts, not conjecture.

Second, your question is already hopelessly biased IMO. You've taken CD out of the query as if it needs no further explanation or comparison; that is ludicrous! First, you ought to try to establish how CD accounts for the behavior of the upper blocks,in your own words perhaps, and with some solid evidence behind it. The evidence for CD has not been established by any legitimate method I'm aware of.

Then it would be time to explore various other mechanisms, and probably even have a debate about whether the upper blocks broke apart before they disappeared into the dust cloud - my opinion on WTC 2 is already known: I maintain that you cannot see the upper block except as it is still intact, then whatever happens afterwards is pretty much pure speculation, whatever your argument is. I'm not viewing this as pro or con CD, just making the point that nobody can know these things either way, IMO, with any real degree of certainty.

What you really need, to establish your case for CD, is solid, positive evidence for it. That seems to be M.I.A. after almost 10 years.

 

[ozeco41]

The large WTC2 east perimeter as it is seen in the rubble. It obviously stretches out from the footprint:

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911_misc/wtc2_east.jpg

Here is a photo album of just rubble from the WTC2 east footprint stretching eastward:

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...1&PAGER_limit=9&PAGER_start=0&PAGER_section=1


Here are some images of the WTC2 east perimeter sheet:

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/31/1486.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/31/1199852102_911_HighQualityPhotos684.jpg[/qimg]


At the very top of the sheet, The 75, 76 fl mechanical floor perimeter is clearly visible, actually speared into the ground:

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/911_HighQualityPhotos8162_g_1.jpg[/qimg]

The 2 extra thick spandrels are the 75th fl (lower mechanical room) and the 77th fl (lower escalator floor)

The piece is located at far end of the sheet here:

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/mech_room_perimeter_2_g_1.jpg[/qimg]
...

Those pictures alone show that the collapse front was at least several storeys ahead of the "peel off" for that part of the tower. And there is nothing to suggest that the east perimeter was unique.

So the perimeter columns were left standing up to at least several storeys high after the crush front had passed, which corresponds to what I thought was the accepted position.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

Just a quick response:
I don't see why you provided the quotation, it adds nothing to the debate except yet another unsubstantiated opinion. The 'pure hooey' comment is unfortunate because the sagging trusses and bowed columns are facts, not conjecture.

Can you prove the opinion false? How likely is it that SanderO's opinion is correct?

Second, your question is already hopelessly biased IMO. You've taken CD out of the query as if it needs no further explanation or comparison; that is ludicrous! First, you ought to try to establish how CD accounts for the behavior of the upper blocks,in your own words perhaps, and with some solid evidence behind it. The evidence for CD has not been established by any legitimate method I'm aware of.

It's not biased. I'm just not at all concerned about whether or not CD can blow things up or cut things. I'm more concerned about whether or not there is another possibility (which fits the evidence) to cause enough mass for ROOSD.

Then it would be time to explore various other mechanisms, and probably even have a debate about whether the upper blocks broke apart before they disappeared into the dust cloud - my opinion on WTC 2 is already known: I maintain that you cannot see the upper block except as it is still intact, then whatever happens afterwards is pretty much pure speculation, whatever your argument is. I'm not viewing this as pro or con CD, just making the point that nobody can know these things either way, IMO, with any real degree of certainty.

I'm not sure what building SanderO was talking about. Was it WTC 2? I guess it would be good to know.

What you really need, to establish your case for CD, is solid, positive evidence for it. That seems to be M.I.A. after almost 10 years.

I'm not trying to establish a case for CD. I'm trying to establish the alternative - hence my line of questioning.

Let's not get pedantic about the questions as much as the answers please

 

[alienentity]

can you prove the opinion false? how likely is it that this opinion is correct?

The opinion is based on sheer ignorance, but as someone around here likes to exclaim, 'hey ho'!. We've got about a zillion threads which discuss that topic in as much detail as you like. I won't bore everyone by debating it again - but you're welcome to use the search function and read about it for yourself.

It's not biased. I'm just not at all concerned about whether or not CD can blow things up or cut things.

Dude. Your lack of concern is a bias. Do you not get that?

Let's not get pedantic about the questions as much as the answers please

I see. There's nothing to learn, and nothing to teach. Why ask questions then, if you already know the answers?

 

[beachnut]

... besides CD what all possibilities are there to explain how the upper blocks were broken apart? ... ?

Gravity. Mass falling. Gee, it is called physics, which 911 truth ignores.

The towers collapsing resulted in releasing energy equal to >150 tons of TNT. That is like 150 2,000 pound bombs all hitting in one acres in 18 seconds.

CD is a delusion, gravity is reality. Which do prefer? Nonsense made up by idiots, or physics? All opinions of CD, are delusional, based on ignorance. Even Bazant know CD is nonsense. Why don't you?

 

[Patriots4Truth]

beachnut, there wasn't one "upper block" ... see more from the link I posted

alienity, my question wasn't biased - it was direct. All I said was that CD is a possibility. That isn't biased - that's factual

 

[Patriots4Truth]

The opinion is based on sheer ignorance, but as someone around here likes to exclaim, 'hey ho'!. We've got about a zillion threads which discuss that topic in as much detail as you like. I won't bore everyone by debating it again - but you're welcome to use the search function and read about it for yourself.

I'm also aware of all the curtailing on JREF but I don't need a search engine for that obviously

To review SanderO's opinion: "NIST comes up with pure hooey about sagging truss pulling the facade in leading to collapsing floors I suppose."

If you don't want to get into a discussion beginning with the question from my first post (a few posts up), that's fine with me. All you have to do is *not answer my question*. You don't have to make a post just to say something along the lines of "I'm not going to answer your question".

 

[alienentity]

I'm also aware of all the curtailing on JREF but I don't need a search engine for that obviously

To review SanderO's opinion: "NIST comes up with pure hooey about sagging truss pulling the facade in leading to collapsing floors I suppose."

If you don't want to get into a discussion beginning with the question from my first post (a few posts up), that's fine with me. All you have to do is *not answer my question*. You don't have to make a post just to say something along the lines of "I'm not going to answer your question".

Now look who's getting pedantic...

The phrase 'pure hooey' is not a productive, useful way to establish a debate. I'm not going to waste any further time with it, but it does show poor judgement on your part for offering it up in your first post.

btw, Beachnut didn't mention an 'upper block', he mentioned gravity.. 'mass falling'. He is 100% correct - whether it is a crush-front, or compacted debris or an intact section - it still easily accounts for the failure of the towers.

Have you not read any of the energy equations?

 

[Patriots4Truth]

My last post: if anyone actually wants to seriously respond to my question, nine posts back, feel free to do so. My question was about initiation per se. Not about whether or not gravity is a sufficient cause for progression. Gravity is definitely a sufficient cause of progression if there is enough mass to initiate the collapse. I wasn't asking about progression.

I know that somewhere earlier in this thread people talked about truss sag. Can the debunkers prove that there was enough inward bowing of the exterior columns for the creep/sagging/heat-induced failure?

 

[pgimeno]

All I said was that CD is a possibility. That isn't biased - that's factual

Factual? Supported by which facts?

Oh, you mean it's a fact that it's a possibility.

Let's play that game.

It's factual that DEW is a possibility.

It's factual that a mysterious winged monster (which I will call Mothra) is a possibility.

It's factual that it's possible that the towers didn't really show any fire or smoke billowing and all was faked by the media and all the witnesses silenced.

But it's biased to favor any of these evidence-less explanations (or others). That's also factual.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

Factual? Supported by which facts?

Oh, you mean it's a fact that it's a possibility.

EXACTLY!
maybe now yall are beginning to understand why my question wasn't biased!
or am I going to have to provide video evidence of myself typing the question?
don't answer that. no need to waste more posts questioning the question

 

[beachnut]

beachnut, there wasn't one "upper block" ... see more from the link I posted

alienity, my question wasn't biased - it was direct. All I said was that CD is a possibility. That isn't biased - that's factual

Patriots4Truth, you don't need to repeat the fact you have no clue what Bazant's work means, or a clue what a model is.

CD is not a possibility, it is a fantasy, a made up lie by 911 truth to fool those who lack knowledge.

To say CD is a possibility, is delusional.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Patriots4Truth, you don't need to repeat the fact you have no clue what Bazant's work means, or a clue what a model is.

CD is not a possibility, it is a fantasy, a made up lie by 911 truth to fool those who lack knowledge.

To say CD is a possibility, is delusional.

Well it was a demolition............just one initiated by a pair of 767s.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

My last post: if anyone actually wants to seriously respond to my question, nine posts back, feel free to do so. My question was about initiation per se. Not about whether or not gravity is a sufficient cause for progression. Gravity is definitely a sufficient cause of progression if there is enough mass to initiate the collapse. I wasn't asking about progression.

I know that somewhere earlier in this thread people talked about truss sag. Can the debunkers prove that there was enough inward bowing of the exterior columns for the creep/sagging/heat-induced failure?

Well lets hear a plausible form of initiation from you (other than the very obvious one of a high speed 767.)

 

[beachnut]

...
Ozeco, once again you seem to be the only JREF debunker posting that can follow any argument at all. If we had a few people who can be sincere like yourself, we could have a good debate. As it is, most of the thread is just noise.

There is no debate. You have a paranoid conspiracy theory of an inside job demolition. How do you debate a fantasy?

You are the noise, you have no understanding of models, and Bazant correctly identifies your claims are false.

Ozeco is playing with you, or he shares your delusions of an inside job. Oops
You are gullible on 911 issues, guess what?

 

[Major_Tom]

Two last examples of very large perimeter sheets seen in the rubble. These examples are so extreme that they should penetrate even the most stubborn minds.


Here we see two distinct sheets. One stretches from the base of the WTC1 footprint westward to the Winter Garden. This shows clear continuity in the perimeter structure out to the furthest perimeter columns, demomstrating they peeled as a sheet outwards. Interestingly, there is a distinct second sheet lying at an angle to the first.

The second example below is of a sheet discovered south and west of the WTC2 footprint.

The sheet from the WTC2 east face shown earlier and these 2 photos are the most extreme examples of intact sheets within the rubble.

There is very little doubt that ROOSD stripping of the sheets from their supporting flooring is the only mechanism that can explain the rubble distribution.

 

[alienentity]

M_T that is a strong argument for the ROOSD mechanism for at least some of the collapse.

Agreed.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

and it is even an argument with pictures... imagine that

 

[alienentity]

and it is even an argument with pictures... imagine that

Hmm... but why do truthers deny such evidence when it is presented by NIST?
Oh, yeah, it's the bias towards CD...I almost forgot!