Bazant was right!! Imagine that

Horatius said:
But Bazant was dealing with an idealized collapse - he didn't model the exact collapse as it was observed. The truthers insisted that his analysis was incorrect, even when considered in light of this idealized case.

The verinage technique shows that their rejection of his analysis was wrong, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mobertermy said:
The problem of saying that Bazant is correct in this context is that we are using a controlled demolition that has a symmetrical upper block crushing down on a lower block causing collapse. If you look at the WTC its pretty clear that the upper block was not crushing down symmetrically and yet there is still a symmetrical collapse.
Click to expand...

You keep repeating this (yet there is still a symmetrical collapse) as if it were an established fact.
It does not help your argument to do that. You need to establish the truth of that claim.

But I agree with jaydeehess' observations that the nebulous use of the terms renders them somewhat meaningless. Just as 'symmetry' can be reinterpreted endlessly, so can 'near freefall' and 'into it's footprint'
 
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...


Do you understand that Bazant's idealized case is the best posible scenario for the towers and the actual events were more likely to result in a global collapse than Bazant's model?
 
alienentity said:
You keep repeating this (yet there is still a symmetrical collapse) as if it were an established fact.
It does not help your argument to do that. You need to establish the truth of that claim.

But I agree with jaydeehess' observations that the nebulous use of the terms renders them somewhat meaningless. Just as 'symmetry' can be reinterpreted endlessly, so can 'near freefall' and 'into it's footprint'
Click to expand...


Are you saying the WTC did not collapse symmetrically? How about the veriange building posted here...was that symmetrical?
 
Mobertermy said:
What do you mean admit Richard Gage is wrong? I never said he's right. All I'm saying is that the video posted here doesn't prove Bazant is right. Maybe try not attributing arguments to me that I'm not making alright.
Click to expand...


Try re-reading that post to see who I was actually talking to.



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...

Hokulele said:
Do you understand that Bazant's idealized case is the best posible scenario for the towers and the actual events were more likely to result in a global collapse than Bazant's model?
Click to expand...


What she said. Bazant's case was the best possible situation to have allowed the collapse to arrest, as the strongest parts of the structure (the columns) took the direct impact of the falling mass. That same impact on any other structure of the building would have been more likely to lead to a collapse, not less likely. Bazant's analysis showed that even in this best case scenario, total collapse was to be expected; the verinage technique shows that his analysis was most likely correct.

In the absence of any better analysis, or any better experiment, we can safely conclude from this that explosives were not needed to create the collapses of the WTC.
 
I have had an Email correspondence over several years with Mr Bezant - he was the only 911 postulator that ever replied to my enquiries. Initially I questioned his "pancake" explanation with "crush-up/crush-down" as it did not fully coincide with the actual progress of collapse I saw on 911. I saw the exterior tube wall elements pealing off in an outward curving action, some in single sections while others were still in large panels - the floor slab truss connectors failed at the exterior wall end first and rotated down until they hit the next floor below while still attached at the core end, when that end failed the debris continued downwards in a circular motion so that the whole dust cloud resembled a doughnut sliding down a pole. Exactly what happened to the core is unclear from all video I've seen as dust blocks the view - what can be seen is large sections of core columns (North Tower) falling virtually intact full height, that is to say with every floor connector already sheared off while still shrouded, these then fall in the director of WTC7.

I appreciate all of the above happening because of the overloading of individual elements rather than the global failure of everything.
 
Horatius said:
What she said. Bazant's case was the best possible situation to have allowed the collapse to arrest, as the strongest parts of the structure (the columns) took the direct impact of the falling mass. That same impact on any other structure of the building would have been more likely to lead to a collapse, not less likely. Bazant's analysis showed that even in this best case scenario, total collapse was to be expected; the verinage technique shows that his analysis was most likely correct.

In the absence of any better analysis, or any better experiment, we can safely conclude from this that explosives were not needed to create the collapses of the WTC.
Click to expand...

Well if you are saying that the way the towers collapsed don't match up with Bazant then I agree with you.
 
Mobertermy said:
Well if you are saying that the way the towers collapsed don't match up with Bazant then I agree with you.
Click to expand...

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...
 
I've never understood the "ah ha!" we get from truthers about Bazant's model and how the towers actually collapsed, as if somehow it's proof of some kind of conspiracy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read Bazant's model as a proof of concept more than any representation of how they actually collapsed. From what this layman can tell, if the towers collapsed in Bazant's model, there was no way they weren't going to in real life.
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
What are models for? (thanks for not calling me a truther.)
Click to expand...

A limiting case removes variables in order to simplify the equation. By assuming that there was no other movement in the collapse initiation other than straight down with a direct column-column contact, he calculated for the impact which was least likely to result in the collapse progression. A scenario where the full capacity of the columns could resist the collapse with the maximum efficiency; his conclusion was that even in removing the variables which made collapse even more likely it still would have happened.

It doesn't model reality, but then again it was never intended to in the first place... The collapses were not nearly as optimistic as his model.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Mobertermy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think the issue is truthers using the difference in Bazant's model to what actually happened to "debunk" the commonly-held narrative of the collapse, not the other way around.
 
Mobertermy said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't think the OP quite understands what the model was about either. It was a demonstration to illustrate why the collapse was essentially inevitable once it got started by quantifying it.

Mobertermy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Reread the response I just gave you a few minutes ago about Bazant's work being a limiting case model. You're doing the same thing every other "truther" does; by assuming he intended to make his model a replication of reality. It wasn't; stop treating like it was and maybe you'll understand better what it is people are explaining to you.
 
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.
 
Bazant's model is useless because it has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Period. Bazant's model requires an intact upper block crushing straight down. Anyone can watch the videos and see that this didn't exist. If you insist on acting like Bazants model explains anything having to do with WTC your just going to make it appear like truthers have a point.
 
OK, I'll take a stab at this.

Models are often developed as a "proof of concept". In other words, they are created to test whether or not something is actually possible before concluding that something is probable. Models can be physical constructs (although scaling can cause issues), computer simulations, or a series of equations and diagrams.

Bazant's first paper demonstrates that once started, regardless of how it began, a global collapse was inevitable based solely on the energy calculations. Later papers refined those calculations and looked at energy losses within the actual collapse.

So, once Bazant's model showed that the global collapse had to happen, it was then reasonable to start doing research into how and why it happened. If Bazant's model showed that the global collapse was impossible in the limiting case, then it would be reasonable to develop a model that more closely resembled the collapses as they actually happened.

To use an analogy that has been done here before, let's say we wanted to figure out whether or not David Ortiz can hit a home run in Fenway Park. David Ortiz himself may be unavailable to do some batting practice, but I am. On the third pitch, I knock it out of the park. If scrawny little me can hit a home run at Fenway Park, it is safe to conclude that David Ortiz can as well, even though I do not hit exactly like Big Papi. I am the model of the event, Ortiz is the real thing.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom