Bazant was right!! Imagine that

Mobertermy said:
Twinstead, the problem from my perspective is that Bazant's model has absolutely nothing to do with reality. He theorized an intact upper block that crushes straight down. Anyone can watch the videos and see this wasn't the case. Personally, I hate seeing Bazant's theory brought up because anyone can see that Bazant was wrong.
Click to expand...

Now I'm confused. You don't think the upper block was intact? We do know the upper block didn't crush straight down, it tilted and rotated a little first, but when I hear 'intact' in this context, I think the vast majority of the mass of the upper block crushed upon the single floor beneath the point of collapse initiation and overloaded it, which then collapsed on the floor beneath that which failed, which repeated all the way down.

Bazant's model in that respect didn't 'have absolutely nothing to do with reality'.
 
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?
 
Take a look at the video posted at the beginning of this thread and you will see a perfect example. Its not a hard concept.
 
Mobertermy said:
Let me put it to you this way Griz. Show me on 911 an intact upper block crushing straight down. If you cant then show me that then bringing up Bazants theory is completely counterproductive. Its almost like intentionally giving truthers a weak argument to argue against.
Click to expand...

Bazant's model is a limiting case. It is used to envelope the problem. Do you know what that means?
 
twinstead said:
Now I'm confused. You don't think the upper block was intact? We do know the upper block didn't crush straight down, it tilted and rotated a little first, but when I hear 'intact' in this context, I think the vast majority of the mass of the upper block crushed upon the single floor beneath the point of collapse initiation and overloaded it, which then collapsed on the floor beneath that which failed, which repeated all the way down.

Bazant's model in that respect didn't 'have absolutely nothing to do with reality'.
Click to expand...


When I look at the footage of WTC I dont see an intact upper block crushing straight down like I see in the verinage video...do you?
 
Bazant's model requires an intact upper block crushing straight down...yes or no.

The verinage video is an example of an intact upper block crushing straight down if you need a reference.
 
Mobertermy said:
When I look at the footage of WTC I dont see an intact upper block crushing straight down like I see in the verinage video...do you?
Click to expand...


are you suggesting that an upper block that is not intact impacting an intact lower block is a best case scenario for collapse arrest?
 
Last edited:
Well if thats what everyone is telling me then we all agree that Bazant's model doesnt explain WTC.
 
This is a picture of Bazant's model.

xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx


xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
 
what do you mean? How can this confuse you. In Bazant's model that upper block comes straight down...it doesn't tip. If you want to talk about something not coming straight down you are no longer taking about Bazant. I think thats a good idea since that matches the reality of WTC whereas Bazants model does not.
 
I appear to have perfected the cloak of invisibility.


ETA: Do you understand that something can tip and come "straight down"? Do you think the actual top section of the towers went off to one side or the other?
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy:

What would be the best case scenario for collapse arrest? Ignoring what we actually saw that day with the exception of the collapse beginning at the initiation floors of course.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom