Bazant was right!! Imagine that

[bardamu]

If the bale is going 500MPH. cut strings or not, it wouldn't make any difference.

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!

Was the rubble falling at 500mph?

Meh mock me all you want using sarcasm, but thats what JREF'S are good at right?

Not sure if you realise but I was using sarcasm to stick up for you. One of the regulars was accusing you of coming here with an agenda just because you don't worship the ground Bazant walks on.

Stundie material?

It was Beachnut who brought bales of hay into the discussion. I was just trying to help.

 

[DGM]

You have to pay extra for "next day" debunking.

This "paper" was debunked months ago when he was still a member. He's got nothing new in it.

 

[DGM]

Was the rubble falling at 500mph?

.

No it was not, I confused the "fuel plug" argument with your analogy. How does your analogy apply to the WTC (I think I asked that once before)? Where did the falling mass go?

 

[Locknar]

Let's stick to the topic/OP folks; derail moved to AAH. If you have a forum management issue/topic/question please use the Forum Management area.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[jaydeehess]

Was the rubble falling at 500mph?

No, neither did it consist of hay.

 

[jaydeehess]

It was Beachnut who brought bales of hay into the discussion. I was just trying to help.

The point being that mass and momentum are not affected at all by the density of the mass.

 

[1stClassAlan]

Bazant's model requires an intact upper block crushing straight down. Without that intact upper block crushing straight down you can't really even refer to it as Bazan't model anymore because it is a crucial element. I'd like to remind you that video in question posted at the beginning of this discussion does have an intact upper block crushing down. I was merely pointing out the simple fact that was not present on 911. So the title of this thread is correct "Bazant was right" - if you have an itact upper block his model works in reality. Without that block it wouldnt work. So I have no idea why Bazant's model would continue to be used to debunk 911 since it has no bearing on what actually occured. I also think that using Bazants model might actually have a damaging effect in that if we represent Bazants theory as the explanation as to why the towers fell anyone can look at the reality of how the towers fell and see that Bazant model doesn't fit at all.

I quite agree with you Mober - in fact I'd go so far to say that I've seen so much bad material used to debunk the Truther arguements that you'd almost think it was some kind of counter-conspriacy!

The fault I find with all these mathematical "models" is that they don't actually model very much all and at worst I suspect they were created to justify a preconceived point of view.

None of which alters my view that the building all fell down by natural causes.

 

[R.Mackey]

The fault I find with all these mathematical "models" is that they don't actually model very much all and at worst I suspect they were created to justify a preconceived point of view.

Welcome to the Forums.

Why do you think the above? And which models in specific are you referring to? I don't follow your reasoning.

 

[ozeco41]

We should never rely on Bazant's work.

His conclusions were correct but his reasoning was wrong. He did not apply his reasoning to the actual mechanism of collapse. His model was not a model of what happened.

However remember the objective is to decide "demolition or not"

It is not to defend NIST or Bazant or anyone else.

Were the twin towers brought down by demolition?

Answer an easy "no" for anyone who looks at the readily available technical evidence. No need to resort to the issues of logistic/security near impossibility.

Was WTC 7 brought down by demolition?

Answer not as simple a conclusive "No" on the available evidence. But the collapse:
1) Did not resemble a controlled demolition despite all the nonsense claims to the contrary;
2) There was no evidence of CD; AND
3) Also the logistic near impossibles PLUS no motive or reason which stands examination.

 

[bardamu]

We should never rely on Bazant's work.

His conclusions were correct but his reasoning was wrong. He did not apply his reasoning to the actual mechanism of collapse. His model was not a model of what happened.

However remember the objective is to decide "demolition or not"

It is not to defend NIST or Bazant or anyone else.

Were the twin towers brought down by demolition?

Answer an easy "no" for anyone who looks at the readily available technical evidence. No need to resort to the issues of logistic/security near impossibility.

Was WTC 7 brought down by demolition?

Answer not as simple a conclusive "No" on the available evidence. But the collapse:
1) Did not resemble a controlled demolition despite all the nonsense claims to the contrary;
2) There was no evidence of CD; AND
3) Also the logistic near impossibles PLUS no motive or reason which stands examination.

The implication is that you need to resort to the issues of logistics and motive to decide whether WTC 7 was a controlled deomolition.

 

[TruthersLie]

The implication is that you need to resort to the issues of logistics and motive to decide whether WTC 7 was a controlled deomolition.

And the implication is that you have no PROOF that it was CD.

Zip, zilch, nada.

I still want to know your video for seeing all 4 corners descend symmetrically and uniformly.

Or your evidence of how a building which falls "symmetrically and uniformly" can manage to have an eastern mechanical penthouse collapse 6 seconds before the rest of the collapse and still be "symmetrical" or "uniform."

Still waiting for you to show me how a building which falls "symmetrically and uniformly" manages to strike 2 adjoining buildings on opposite sides of the buildings in DIFFERENT places including the roof of Fitterman Hall.

Still waiting for you to explain how explosives managed to throw debris outside the architectural footprint silently with no one noticing.

Please provide your proof of these astounding claims. I for one eagerly await your thesis.

Come on twoof. Man up.

 

[ozeco41]

The implication is that you need to resort to the issues of logistics and motive to decide whether WTC 7 was a controlled deomolition.

That is arse about logic.

The NIST explanation is technically persuasive but cannot be concluded on the material readily available to us on the internet HOWEVER we can form the "no demolition" conclusion on the logistic/security/motivation aspects.

The logistic evidence is sufficient by itself to an intelligent person without the technical. (Similarly the logistic evidence is sufficient to show "no demolition" for WTC 1 and 2 WITHOUT resorting to the technical.) However those persons persisting as truthers in the face of logical explanation are either not "intelligent", not "honest" or both.

 

[BigAl]

The implication is that you need to resort to the issues of logistics and motive to decide whether WTC 7 was a controlled deomolition.

To people like me that have spent a lifetime working in Manhattan high-rise buildings managng secure 24x7 operations and having been involve with total renovation of entire floors right down to the bare beams and concrete and having worked with the union trades and dealt with what it takes to get construction material into the loading dock and up the frieght elavators, the logiststics of suggested by man-made demolition are at least as stupid as the hush-A-boom explosives needed to take down the towers.

 

[ozeco41]

To people like me that have spent a lifetime working in Manhattan high-rise buildings managng secure 24x7 operations and having been involve with total renovation of entire floors right down to the bare beams and concrete and having worked with the union trades and dealt with what it takes to get construction material into the loading dock and up the frieght elavators, the logiststics of suggested by man-made demolition are at least as stupid as the hush-A-boom explosives needed to take down the towers.

Ditto in the case of this Military Engineer with demolition qualifications.

Either demolition scenario is ridiculous. ie pre set before the plane strike OR post set after the strike (or after the falling debris impact for WTC7)

The MOST viable scenario for WTC 1 & 2 requires "Dreadnought" suited suicide volunteers to place the charges in the midst of a raging fire.

And that one was the "most viable"

 

[bardamu]

Ditto in the case of this Military Engineer with demolition qualifications.

Either demolition scenario is ridiculous. ie pre set before the plane strike OR post set after the strike (or after the falling debris impact for WTC7)

The MOST viable scenario for WTC 1 & 2 requires "Dreadnought" suited suicide volunteers to place the charges in the midst of a raging fire.

And that one was the "most viable"

But then again, you don't need to rely on issues of logistics, do you?

 

[BigAl]

But then again, you don't need to rely on issues of logistics, do you?

To people like me that have spent a lifetime working in Manhattan high-rise buildings managng secure 24x7 operations and having been involve with total renovation of entire floors right down to the bare beams and concrete and having worked with the union trades and dealt with what it takes to get construction material into the loading dock and up the frieght elavators, the logiststics of suggested by man-made demolition are at least as stupid as the hush-A-boom explosives needed to take down the towers.

 

[thecritta]

Does anybody here have yahoo IM?

 

[ozeco41]

But then again, you don't need to rely on issues of logistics, do you?

Correct - no one has to - the "no demolition" truth is evident from the structural mechanism of failure and the available evidence.

AND - Take care, you are showing that you are paying attention.

 

[1stClassAlan]

To people like me that have spent a lifetime working in Manhattan high-rise buildings managng secure 24x7 operations and having been involve with total renovation of entire floors right down to the bare beams and concrete and having worked with the union trades and dealt with what it takes to get construction material into the loading dock and up the frieght elavators, the logiststics of suggested by man-made demolition are at least as stupid as the hush-A-boom explosives needed to take down the towers.

Funnily enough I have shared your nickname over here! I spent about twenty years managing big fit-outs in the U.K. including several buildings severely damaged by terrorist bombs. We had a big shake up with the unions over here during the time of Margaret Thatcher - you might have heard of her? Our construction unions have never been as strong as we hear the Teamsters still are but they have managed to make life difficult on many jobs and are now using Health & Safety law to further their aims - in fact - I'd say that any issue that now reaches the news is union sponsored to keep old style manning levels or favour membership in some way.


.