Bazant was right!! Imagine that

[Slayhamlet]

So anyone that disagrees with your preposterous conclusions is a truther?

What are my preposterous conclusions, truther?

 

[Mobertermy]

If by "exact same" you mean "can cause the building to collapse" then yes.

I agree that flying the planes into the building caused them to collapse. I dont believe they exaclty replicate the vernage method and I dont think Bazants model has much pertinence to what actually occured if you look at the way they fell.

 

[Slayhamlet]

I agree that flying the planes into the building caused them to collapse. I dont believe they exaclty replicate the vernage method and I dont think Bazants model has much pertinence to what actually occured if you look at the way they fell.

Yes, we understand that you wilfully misrepresent the purpose of Bazant's paper, which was not to replicate the collapses.

How 'bout actually reading it and following the calculations instead of relying upon the interpretations of known fraudsters with a twisted agenda to push?

 

[Mobertermy]

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?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

This forum has it's share of..........I just can't say it!

 

[Newtons Bit]

Mobertermy is trolling. Whether or not he is a truther is another matter. He has been explained why Bazant model is not supposed to be identical to the events on 911. He has been shown Bazant's own words from his paper on said model why this is done.

He has ignored those explanations. He's not here to learn, he's here to cause trouble. Stop interacting with him.

 

[A W Smith]

You are missing two things. Bazant said upper section would crush straight down. Said upper section was intact. I am not saying bazants model is wrong.

he said neither, he said IF, do you not understand what a limiting case is?

I'm saying it has no application to what happened on 911 since those two elements were missing.

so you are saying that what actually happened, the tilt, and top section not being fully intact. was least favorable? or more favorable to collapse arrest???

The OP shows an intact upper block crushing straight down therefore Bazant limit case model proven correct. WTC on 911 shows not-intact upper portion that isnt crushing straight down. Therefore: Bazant model has no application to 911.

so was what happened on 911, more favorable? or less favorable to collapse arrest than Bazants limiting case model? and please stop dancing around this question by simply hand waving it off by claiming "it doesn't apply" because it does..

 

[Horatius]

He has ignored those explanations. He's not here to learn, he's here to cause trouble. Stop interacting with him.

Exactly right. Notice he completely ignores my point about the "mind willing to understand", and my explanation of how Bazant's model is relevant to 9/11. No reason at all for someone really interested in the question to ignore those points.

Time to give up, his Mark of Woo is glowing.

 

[Tricky]

Some very uncivil posts deleted. Stay on topic and do not make personal attacks. Remember that you must address the topic, not the person making it and this includes posts that are nothing but speculation about a member's motives. That is considered a Rule 12 violation.

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

 

[Mobertermy]

Okay, how about this since you all appear to think I'm not here to understand...you give me a link or page that will explain Bazants paper and how it is supposed to be understood in relation to 911 and I'll go read it.

 

[carlitos]

1) I'd rather someone drop fifty punds of sand on my head than a fifty pound lead ball.

Why is that?

 

[Mobertermy]

Wouldnt the sand be more diffuse?

 

[jaydeehess]

Stanley Praimneth believes his life was saved by God.

I did not say that I believed in God, only that the Jihadists did.

Thank you for illustrating that both they and Stanley believe, as OT as this line of thought is.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Okay, how about this since you all appear to think I'm not here to understand...you give me a link or page that will explain Bazants paper and how it is supposed to be understood in relation to 911 and I'll go read it.

Just read the paper

 

[carlitos]

Wouldnt the sand be more diffuse?

So?

 

[A W Smith]

least favorable? or more favorable to collapse arrest?

again

<

or

>

????

Will you be answering my question in the post above?

 

[carlitos]

Just read the paper

Seconded. It's 5 or 6 pages. What in the world is the problem?

 

[Mobertermy]

I have read the paper. My comments so far have been my interpretation of that which are according to you are wrong.

 

[carlitos]

If you read the paper, why can't you answer these simple questions?

Originally Posted by Hokulele
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?

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit
Bazant's model is a limiting case. It is used to envelope the problem. Do you know what that means?

Originally Posted by A W Smith
are you suggesting that an upper block that is not intact impacting an intact lower block is a best case scenario for collapse arrest?

 

[Furcifer]

Okay, how about this since you all appear to think I'm not here to understand...you give me a link or page that will explain Bazants paper and how it is supposed to be understood in relation to 911 and I'll go read it.

I see Slay posted a link.

There's going to be a test afterward to see if you were paying attention OK? Just a little test, some physics, some logic questions, nothing too hard. Take your time and feel free to ask questions if you have any.