Bazant was right!! Imagine that

Hokulele said:
As penance, you must explain, accurately and succintly, why the towers didn't topple over like a tree.

Go!
Click to expand...
Towers are not trees. (Towers r knot trees)

Tallest tree is 331 feet, the towers were 1300 feet. You can get 3.31 feet of your tape measure to topple over, but 13 feet will not stand the lean. Simple modeling. Got models?

Towers were 95 percent air, trees are 20 to 50% water and 50 to 53 percent cellulose. I have no idea why water and cellulose like to remain rigid, but 30 foot steel sections connected to other 30 foot sections don't.

The towers were not built in Toontown.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
You're so quick to assume that they are two different people. I'm a skeptic. All new posters are socks of old ones until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

See if I was making vague sexual innuendo I'd say something about this being the place for socks.
 
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...

Mober.

1. The building isn't a steel framed building.
2. But many of the twoofs arguments revolve around the little part C cannot crush down the bigger part A. EVER. We had a poster here who kept on yammering about that. He even said (rather idiotically) that if you took the smaller top part C and dropped it from 2 miles up it wouldn't crushdown the lower part in ANY BUILDING TYPE.
3. What the verinage technique shows is that if you remove the support for only one floor the smaller part C can crushdown the larger part A. This shows that once the collapse starts it will not be arrested.

Which means that Bazant was right in that once a collapse starts in a certain type of building, it will progress and continue to the ground.

This is also a demonstration of several other truther talking points.
1. squibs... there are no CD charges involved, but we seee similar "squibs" to the wtc towers...
2. the huge cloud of dust and debris which truthers call pyroclastic clouds...
 
Mobertermy said:
In the case of WTC we have an asymmetrical top section smashing down to cause a symmetrical collapse. Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

Umm that isn't what happened.

none of the collapses were symmetrical. we have asymmetrical drops and asymmetrical collapses of all three buildings.

In the towers we can see in slowed down video that the collapse was on different floors at slightly different times, so air would come out of one floor on ONE side of the building a second faster than the OTHER side of the building.

as for wtc7, it wasn't symmetrical in that it hit 2 adjacent buildings on opposite sides, and it had the easter mechanical penthouse collapse first... that isn't symmetry, but it is a truther LIE.
 
Mobertermy said:
I haven't moved the goalposts at all. Bazant claims that we have an upper block crushing down on the lower structure. Thats what we see here with the verinage, but that is not the case with WTC. Its that simple.
Click to expand...

Thank you for coming fully out and demonstrating your twoof.

I love it when twoofs come here and say "i'm not a twoof," and then in 5 posts put out the full twoof.

which sock are you?
 
Mobertermy said:
The problem with his idealized case is that it has an ideal upper block that is crushing straight down. Anyone can watch the WTC collapse and see that the reality has nothing to do with Bazant's ideal. You can also watch the verinage technigue and see that the idealized intact upper block crushing down symmetrically is there. I didn't know that if I disagreed with Bazant's idealized case that would all of a sudden make me a troofer.
Click to expand...

The problem you seem to be missing (maybe on purpose?) is that Bazant was a LIMITING case of what would happen IN THE BEST CIRCUMSTANCES. And guess what, even in the BEST circumstances, once the collapse started it was going to collapse fully and to the ground.
 
Mobertermy said:
Absolutely, if the floors fail in a certain way. Is the building in this video a steel structure though?
Click to expand...

I dont know and I dont see why it matters.Gage doesn't specify, because he knows he would be pulling it out of his arse.

The verinage demolitions don't prove the towers werent demolished but it does prove that...

1. Gage's indicators of "explosive demolition" are nonsense. Since you get all those same effects without explosives. It shows that those effects are all what you would expect if the top part of a building crushes itself.

2. It shows that the truth movements claim that NIST should have modelled the rest of the collapse is without basis. All they needed to do is show how it started because as these videos show as soon as the top is off centre it will plummet down through the rest of the structure, it is not going to fall off or fall over like a tree.

3. As an aside not technically related to verinage is all indicators of a real explosive demoltiion that we dont see in the WTC to add to the reason why Gage's indicators are wrong, eg. Loud explosions.

Logically then after this you can argue it was still a demolition, you just cant use these arguments.

If you want to say thermite caused the floors to fail, thats still valid. If you want to say they used Crackamite thats still valid. If you want to say they pulled the floors with cables thats still valid*.

(*However when I say its valid I only mean logically after dealing with what verinage demonstrates, it says nothing about how valid these claims are when evaluated on their own )
 
Last edited:
Slayhamlet said:
Yes, we understand that you wilfully misrepresent the purpose of Bazant's paper, which was not to replicate the collapses.
Click to expand...

Eight years after the events, you shouldn't need to depend on a limiting case study. There should be enough papers by now that do replicate the collapses.


TruthersLie said:
Mober.

1. The building isn't a steel framed building.
2. But many of the twoofs arguments revolve around the little part C cannot crush down the bigger part A. EVER. We had a poster here who kept on yammering about that. He even said (rather idiotically) that if you took the smaller top part C and dropped it from 2 miles up it wouldn't crushdown the lower part in ANY BUILDING TYPE.
3. What the verinage technique shows is that if you remove the support for only one floor the smaller part C can crushdown the larger part A. This shows that once the collapse starts it will not be arrested
Click to expand...

THC was a limiting case scenario. Even if you'd managed to win the challenge (which you didn't), you'd still have to show that the same could happen to a steel structure.


TruthersLie said:
none of the collapses were symmetrical. we have asymmetrical drops and asymmetrical collapses of all three buildings.

In the towers we can see in slowed down video that the collapse was on different floors at slightly different times, so air would come out of one floor on ONE side of the building a second faster than the OTHER side of the building.
Click to expand...

Splitting hairs much?


beachnut said:
Why not opt for a bale of hay, or feathers that weighs 50 pounds. ... avoiding science?
Click to expand...

I'll opt for a bale of hay with the strings cut, or 50 pounds of loose feathers.


carlitos said:
Really, I think that this is the problem. If someone on the 'truth' bandwagon sees water cutting steel, they are simply unable to relate it to 'aluminium wings cutting steel' and so on. These folks have (to paraphrase tfk) a flawed epistemology. They can't answer simple questions, can't reason. It bums me out.
Click to expand...

Does your epistemology lead you to believe the planes had water-jets on the leading edge of the wings?


ElMondoHummus said:
What I was trying to do was be sarcastic and ironic. Looks like I failed. Sorry. :(
Click to expand...

Leave that to the experts!
 
Mobertermy said:
Look, all of you that are defending Bazant's model are missing one very simple fact. It requires an intact upper block. His model could basically be called the "intact upper block crushing straight down model." Without that intact upper block everything else meaningless. Thats why the verinage video supports Bazant...there is an intact upper block. But there was no intact upper block on 911. This is a simple point and I really hope you people aren't arguing against truthers using Bazants model as "proof" they are wrong because anyone can easily verify for themselves that Bazants model explains nothing on 911. If you are using Bazants model this would give the impression that there is no counter argument against truthers. See how it is coounter productive?
Click to expand...

You are wrong about this.

Bazants first model shows that once the collapse began it would continue, NO MATTER WHAT.

even under the BEST situation, it would still crush down to the ground.

That was the purpose of Bazants first model and first paper on the subject.

It is rather simple. What part of that do you not understand?
 
bardamu said:
Eight years after the events, you shouldn't need to depend on a limiting case study. There should be enough papers by now that do replicate the collapses.
!
Click to expand...

One hundred years and no attempt to replicate the sinking of the Titanic! OMG.. OMG.. I just found undeniable proof that the sinking of the Titanic was an inside jobby-job! OMG! OMG!

On ignore another dense, ignorant, arrogant delusional fool goes!
 
Mobertermy said:
Oh, so now I "wilfully misrepresented" it because I disagree with you? What is wrong with you. I thought I was making a simple point and all of a sudden I have ten people attacking me...is this forum some kind of cult or something?
Click to expand...

You have 10 people telling you that you are not understanding what the paper was about.

It was not to accurately reflect what happened on 9/11. It was to show that under the BEST circumstances (with intact, end on end column collisions) that it would still collapse.

So when you take into account that the towers tipped and did not descend end on end, it shows you that once collapse was started it would progress.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?
 
Mobertermy said:
Wouldnt the sand be more diffuse?
Click to expand...

Sure it would be slightly more diffuse.

Kind of like this water. I mean it is only water... it shouldn't do anything to the car.



Let me know if you can see how just water destroyed the car... so would "just debris/just rubble" do things to the towers?

ETA: DAMN... people beat me to it.
 
Last edited:
bardamu said:
Eight years after the events, you shouldn't need to depend on a limiting case study. There should be enough papers by now that do replicate the collapses.
Click to expand...

There are only about 80 peer reviewed engineering journal article which suppor the common narrative... and the NIST reports and the FEMA reports..

after 8 years how many do you twoofs have (in any language) which say the common narrative is wrong?

THC was a limiting case scenario. Even if you'd managed to win the challenge (which you didn't), you'd still have to show that the same could happen to a steel structure.
Click to expand...

THC had about a half dozen people proposed examples which beat it. Try again. Massive fail twoof.

I'll opt for a bale of hay with the strings cut, or 50 pounds of loose feathers.
Click to expand...

Oh pretty please. Go ahead and make a video of 50 lbs of hay falling on your head from a foot up. I'd love to see it.
 
TL, advocating thata someone hurt themselves on purpose could be a violation of your MA. But, the comedy that would ensue if there were a YouTube video of that would be mind boggling!! :D
 
From Bazant: "(in theory, if people could have escaped from the upper part of the tower, the bottom part of the tower could have been saved if the upper part were bombed, exploded or weakened by some "smart" structure mechanism to collapse onto the lower part gradually as a pile of rubble, instead of impacting it instantly as an almost rigid body)." Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't this mean the upper portion must remain intact (like a lead ball) and not diffuse (like sand).

- Trutherslie: Correct me if I'm wrong...didn't you just get done saying that it could be rubble. So are you disagreeing with Bazant?
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Mother of God... I just read through the second page of this thread. We have yet another guy who doesn't understand that Bazant never claimed his model reflected the real world? We have yet another genius who cannot understand the concept of "if it can happen in this case, it can happen in all other lesser cases"? Again?
Click to expand...
And I had a feeling after initially following the discussion that it would end up this way :\ I hinted at it...

Grizzly Bear said:
I've constantly reminded people who have difficulty understanding what Bazant's writing was about to look up what a limiting case entails. The fact that the collapses were under much worse circumstances than what Bazant includes in his model should be the biggest indicator that his overall conclusion that the collapse would have progressed anyway was correct. Of course some people have been reminded of this numerous times and still can't grasp the concept. Let's see if this is the case for you after the patient attempts of several others to help you...
Click to expand...

Moberty, unless you get it through your head what a limiting case is, this discussion can't go anywhere else. We can try to help you figure this out, but you need to comprehend it, and despite attempts to make the matter simple it still eludes you. Moreover, you don't seem to care that it eludes you, in which case I'm not sure why you're seeking help in this thread to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom