Not only do you ignore what is actually written and replace it with a strawman, but then also confuse my interpretation of the document – “a blueprint for future nefarious action”?? That made me chuckle. No, what the document details are Neocon aims, their stark fear of a declining U.S. military and global influence since end of the Cold War, their concern for the future pre-eminence of America itself and what it would take for a rapid turnaround of the situation. It shows in clarity the benefit that an attack would bring; the Neocon motive for a false flag.
Is it that those implications terrify you so much that you cannot bear to see it?
Reproducing every single detail of the event is virtually impossible and getting close would require an unreasonable amount of resources. It is obvious that this was a terrorist attack. NIST wasn't tasked with refuting conspiracy theorists and they weren't given an unlimited budget for that accomplishment. If they had been, they could have.
Your criticisms of NIST are misplaced and uninformed. If you want to create an exact physics model, feel free to spend your time and money on such a project. This wasn't the job of NIST. You need to get that through your skull before you can move forward.
“The fact is that the upper and lower blocks are indeed destroying each other at equal rates”
“I am indeed saying that the upper and lower blocks are destroying each other at equal rates.”
“the upper block and lower block are experiencing the same amount of damage throughout.”
“The fact that the crush-up of entire stories cannot occur simultaneously with the crush-down…”
Then realizing this, you flip-flopped your argument to say that whilst the blocks, “are destroying each other at equal rates”/“experiencing the same amount of damage”… they were actually… not. It’s amazing how one can hold two contradictory positions like that. And even then your adapted argument/explanation is at complete odds with how Bazant sees it.
Your statements above are correct. The one mistake you made was to then attempt to shift your position back in line with the ‘authoritative’ theory rather than having strength of mind to hold your ground.
Now I know how much people like to whinge about ‘misquoting’ when I use their own words against their argument so I will invite anyone interested to read from post #828 of this thread to understand the full context of booNy’s statements and position.
Bazant’s treatment of the upper block as nigh on indestructible alone shows this is no “limiting case”.
- putting an immediate halt to downward movement of the upper block after a fall through any number of storeys (Bazant provides the best case for this scenario, which of course is unrealistic and will never occur).
- accounting for a gradual loss of momentum and impact force through deterioration of the upper block (Bazant provides the worst case for this scenario, which of course is realistic and did occur).
It is not conservative/limiting, for survival of the lower block, to simultaneously apply the entire impact force of a nigh indestructible upper block directly to the most vital structure that was holding the building up (as 1. above). What an utter nonsense. If you expect there was any chance of the upper block falling through one storey and then stopping dead, then I can see it would make sense. But that was never going to happen.
It is the same difference as being hit on the head with a hammer or having an equivalent mass/speed of metal shavings dropped on you. The first is indeed best case for halting movement of the object, but is terrible for your survival. The second will not bring an instant halt to the moving object, but I like your chances better.
You just need to understand what exactly Bazant is providing the “best case” for.
Oh and I certainly never said he did or even attempted to calculate the actual conditions.
Here it is again: -
“As will become apparent below, the rules at JEM that govern other authors do not apply to Dr. Bazant.”
~James Gourley, U.S. attorney