Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

WTC7


  • Please log in to reply
1999 replies to this topic

#1051    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:21 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 21 April 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

I read it and paid plenty of attention.  It was written very well actually.  You interpret it as a blueprint for future nefarious action, but it wasn't.  It was an assessment.
If you read ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’ and paid plenty of attention, then why do your words not reflect the content?  Why do you say the objective was simply “a military response” and that four crashed planes was “sufficient” pretext?  Is that what the document says?  Is it?   :wacko:

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?


View PostbooNyzarC, on 21 April 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

The version of 911 that you have convinced yourself of.
We were discussing viability of the WTC demolitions.  Can you describe exactly what you find “impossible” about that, or not?  So far you have shown that you cannot.  The reason you cannot is because you know there is a solution to any supposed impossibility.  The impossibility you allege is just an imaginary defense/comfort blanket.


View PostbooNyzarC, on 21 April 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

NIST produced a range of models per industry standards and none of them were a perfect match with the exact details of the day.  They were tasked not only with producing a probable collapse sequence for the buildings, but also to provide recommendations for improving general building codes and standards.

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.
It was you who referred to “physics” and “inevitable” collapses.  Then soon as I refer you to the most accurate physics model available which shows the collapses were not inevitable, you want to write it off.  Truly brilliant… and typical.  Thus the reason you state “inevitable”, is nothing to do with “physics” but a desired belief.


View PostbooNyzarC, on 21 April 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

I didn't crap all over Bazant's theory.
Yes, you really did…

“The fact is that the upper and lower blocks are indeed destroying each other at equal rates”
~booNy

“I am indeed saying that the upper and lower blocks are destroying each other at equal rates.”
~booNy

“the upper block and lower block are experiencing the same amount of damage throughout.”
~booNy

“The fact that the crush-up of entire stories cannot occur simultaneously with the crush-down…”
~Bazant


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”.


View PostbooNyzarC, on 21 April 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

A limiting case is a best case scenario which would be the most resistant to global collapse.  Even in this limiting case global collapse was a foregone conclusion.  There was no stopping it once it started.
There are two separate issues here which you still fail to grasp: -

  • 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.


View PostbooNyzarC, on 21 April 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

You can label it favoritism all you want, but until you or someone else can produce something that actually refutes it, Bazant's papers stand uncontested.
It is not my opinion but that of a U.S. attorney involved in the peer-review process.  If you actually read what he said – it is not permitted to fairly contest Bazant’s paper.  To anyone informed, your request above is entirely disingenuous.

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

http://911blogger.com/node/18196

Please read and take on board.


View PostbooNyzarC, on 21 April 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

Of course you won't.  Just like you avoid other points that have been made over and over again.  Just like you avoid describing exactly how Bazant doesn't account for Newton's third law according to your claims.
Why are you lying?  I have never avoided anything.  I go out of my way to explain points where some would not speculate.  I took considerable time and numerous posts to spell out to you how Bazant circumvents Newton’s third law (and the other points you mentioned).  To say that I avoided it… ?  That is dishonest.  If you still don’t understand or agree with what I said then fair enough, but don’t spiel off a list of accusations that you know very well are not true.


View PostbooNyzarC, on 21 April 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

How much of your life are you intending to waste in pursuit of this nonsensical conspiracy anyway?
I happen to think it is quite worthwhile   :)

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1052    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,888 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:31 AM

View PostQ24, on 22 April 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

Why are you lying?  I have never avoided anything.  I go out of my way to explain points where some would not speculate.  I took considerable time and numerous posts to spell out to you how Bazant circumvents Newton’s third law (and the other points you mentioned).  To say that I avoided it… ?  That is dishonest.  If you still don’t understand or agree with what I said then fair enough, but don’t spiel off a list of accusations that you know very well are not true.
Why are you lying?  All you've done is point to Bazant's conclusion that the lower block is more damaged than the upper block and claim that this is wrong because it doesn't match your limited understanding of Newton's laws.  You completely ignore Bazant's calculations leading to this conclusion, because you simply can't follow them.  You are unable to point to a single point in those calculations where any of Newton's laws are circumvented.  

A textbook example for Dunning and Kruger.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#1053    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 22 April 2012 - 12:20 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 22 April 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

Why are you lying?  All you've done is point to Bazant's conclusion that the lower block is more damaged than the upper block and claim that this is wrong because it doesn't match your limited understanding of Newton's laws.  You completely ignore Bazant's calculations leading to this conclusion, because you simply can't follow them.  You are unable to point to a single point in those calculations where any of Newton's laws are circumvented.  

A textbook example for Dunning and Kruger.
Typical flyingswan drivel.

  • Whatever you think of my argument, it does not amount to avoidance.
  • You attempt to conceal the complete points of my argument (which actually includes physical observation and non-partisan physics models along with Newton’s third law), please read from post #828.
  • You forever fail to understand it is not the calculations per se that are a problem, but the assumptions they are based upon.
In all, it would be of use if you tried to understand the argument and what is said, instead of coming up with your strawman positions.  What do you think you are ‘debunking’?  I explain the actual issues and it’s as though you’re responding to someone else, or at very least completely miss the point.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1054    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,888 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 22 April 2012 - 01:53 PM

View PostQ24, on 22 April 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

  • Whatever you think of my argument, it does not amount to avoidance.
  • You attempt to conceal the complete points of my argument (which actually includes physical observation and non-partisan physics models along with Newton’s third law), please read from post #828.
  • You forever fail to understand it is not the calculations per se that are a problem, but the assumptions they are based upon.
You're certainly avoiding any attempt to look at Bazant's paper in any detail.  Your argument amounts to saying that you don't believe the conclusion therefore there must be something wrong somewhere, you just can't say where.

Your "physical observation" leads a lot to be desired.  You just say "look at this video", but you can't point out in any detail what exactly is in the video that supports your argument.

You have failed to come up with Bazant making any such assumption.  His relevant calculation is in the appendix to this paper.
http://www.civil.nor...TC collapse.pdf

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#1055    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 22 April 2012 - 04:00 PM

View PostQ24, on 22 April 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

If you read ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’ and paid plenty of attention, then why do your words not reflect the content?  Why do you say the objective was simply “a military response” and that four crashed planes was “sufficient” pretext?  Is that what the document says?  Is it?   :wacko:

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?
What is so difficult for you to understand?  The crashing of the planes into the buildings would have been a sufficiently "catastrophic and catalyzing event" in and of itself.



View PostQ24, on 22 April 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

We were discussing viability of the WTC demolitions.  Can you describe exactly what you find “impossible” about that, or not?  So far you have shown that you cannot.  The reason you cannot is because you know there is a solution to any supposed impossibility.  The impossibility you allege is just an imaginary defense/comfort blanket.
I said virtually impossible.  By that I mean that it is so close to impossible that it becomes implausible in my opinion.  You really are struggling with some basic concepts here Q24.



View PostQ24, on 22 April 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

It was you who referred to “physics” and “inevitable” collapses.  Then soon as I refer you to the most accurate physics model available which shows the collapses were not inevitable, you want to write it off.  Truly brilliant… and typical.  Thus the reason you state “inevitable”, is nothing to do with “physics” but a desired belief.
What is so difficult to understand here?  NIST provided a range of models per industry standards.  None of the models were perfect representations of every exact detail.  Given more time and resources, NIST could have further refined the models to approach increasing degrees of accuracy, but the models they worked with were sufficient for determining a probable collapse sequence and for delivering recommendations to improve building codes and standards.  That is what they were tasked to do.  That is what they accomplished.

The inevitability of collapse is based on the actual conditions present, not on an effort to model those conditions.



View PostQ24, on 22 April 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

Yes, you really did…

“The fact is that the upper and lower blocks are indeed destroying each other at equal rates”
~booNy

“I am indeed saying that the upper and lower blocks are destroying each other at equal rates.”
~booNy

“the upper block and lower block are experiencing the same amount of damage throughout.”
~booNy

“The fact that the crush-up of entire stories cannot occur simultaneously with the crush-down…”
~Bazant


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”.
No, I really didn't crap all over Bazant's theory.  My statements do not disagree with Bazant in any way.  If you would actually quote Bazant fully, you'd possibly realize that.

The fact that the crush-up of entire stories cannot occur simultaneously with the crush-down is demonstrated by the condition of the dynamic equilibrium of compacted layer B, along with an estimate of the inertia force of this layer due to vertical deceleration or acceleration; [see Eq. (10) and Fig. 2(f) of Bažant and Verdure (2007)]. This previous demonstration, however, was only approximate since it did not take into account the variation of crushing forces Fc and F'c during the collapse of a story. An accurate analysis of simultaneous (deterministic) crush-up and crush-down is reported in Bažant and Le (2008) and is reviewed in the Appendix, where the differential equations and the initial conditions for a two-way crush are formulated. It is found that, immediately after the first critical story collapses, crush fronts will propagate both downward and upward. However, the crush-up front will advance into the overlying story by only about 1% of its original height h and then stop. Consequently, the effect of the initial two-way crush is imperceptible and the original hypothesis that the crush-down and crush-up cannot occur simultaneously is almost exact.


What you seem to really struggle with there is that the upper block is continuing to grow as it essentially absorbs the mass of each successive floor in the collapse.  And even though the destructive waves do propagate into both the upper and lower sections, the primary forces are taking place between the crush down front and the next floor that it impacts.



View PostQ24, on 22 April 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

There are two separate issues here which you still fail to grasp: -

  • 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.
You just aren't getting it.  I'll try to make this as basic as possible.

Prior to collapse initiation the velocity of the upper block is 0.
Once initiated, the upper block accelerates due to gravity.
If the upper block has any remaining momentum after breaking through the next floor, its velocity is now greater than zero and it continues to accelerate downward due to gravity.
Force is equal to mass times acceleration.
If the upper block is increasing in mass (by essentially absorbing the mass of the each failed floor) and increasing in speed (due to momentum plus gravity) its destructive force is likewise increasing as the collapse progresses.

Your hammer and metal shavings analogy does not apply here.



View PostQ24, on 22 April 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

It is not my opinion but that of a U.S. attorney involved in the peer-review process.  If you actually read what he said – it is not permitted to fairly contest Bazant’s paper.  To anyone informed, your request above is entirely disingenuous.

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

http://911blogger.com/node/18196

Please read and take on board.
Do you notice that he is crying about being supposedly mistreated instead of addressing the content of Bazant's rebuttal to his uninformed criticisms?  Boo freaking Hoo :cry:



View PostQ24, on 22 April 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

Why are you lying?  I have never avoided anything.  I go out of my way to explain points where some would not speculate.  I took considerable time and numerous posts to spell out to you how Bazant circumvents Newton’s third law (and the other points you mentioned).  To say that I avoided it… ?  That is dishonest.  If you still don’t understand or agree with what I said then fair enough, but don’t spiel off a list of accusations that you know very well are not true.
I'm not lying.  Bazant doesn't circumvent Newton's third law and you've never been able to point out where exactly he supposedly does this.  Your cherry picked and incomplete quoting of him serves only to illustrate your personal bias and inability to address the whole of his paper.


#1056    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 22 April 2012 - 04:08 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 22 April 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

You're certainly avoiding any attempt to look at Bazant's paper in any detail.  Your argument amounts to saying that you don't believe the conclusion therefore there must be something wrong somewhere, you just can't say where.
Endless strawman arguments - “don't believe the conclusion therefore there must be something wrong”.  When in fact it is, “there is a lot wrong in the assumption compared to reality therefore the conclusion cannot be applied to 9/11”.


View Postflyingswan, on 22 April 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

Your "physical observation" leads a lot to be desired.  You just say "look at this video", but you can't point out in any detail what exactly is in the video that supports your argument.
No, more of your lies - I indicated the exact second in that video where the collapse momentum appears to slow.


View Postflyingswan, on 22 April 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

You have failed to come up with Bazant making any such assumption.  His relevant calculation is in the appendix to this paper.
http://www.civil.nor...TC collapse.pdf
Refer to any one of my previous dozens of posts on the subject of Bazant’s assumptions.

There is one new point we haven’t been over a thousand times…

How did that ‘spire’ of core columns pass through the ‘intact’ upper block?

Posted Image

It must be around sixty storeys tall.

So come on, explain how a solid object passed through the ‘intact’ upper block which supposedly was not destroyed until ground level   :rolleyes:

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1057    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 22 April 2012 - 04:46 PM

View PostQ24, on 22 April 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

No, more of your lies - I indicated the exact second in that video where the collapse momentum appears to slow.
At 22 seconds in this video if I'm not mistaken?  Exactly how are you determining that the collapse momentum appears to slow at that point?



View PostQ24, on 22 April 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

Refer to any one of my previous dozens of posts on the subject of Bazant’s assumptions.

There is one new point we haven’t been over a thousand times…

How did that ‘spire’ of core columns pass through the ‘intact’ upper block?

Posted Image

It must be around sixty storeys tall.

So come on, explain how a solid object passed through the ‘intact’ upper block which supposedly was not destroyed until ground level   :rolleyes:
When are you going to differentiate between Bazant's limiting case and the actual event?  You keep interchanging the two.  You argue that Bazant's model is false because we can clearly see that the real world event doesn't match the model.  You are comparing apples to oranges.  When are you going to stop doing that?

Of course Bazant's paper doesn't mimic the exact characteristics witnessed in the actual collapse.  The actual collapse was not the same best case scenario that Bazant presented.  In terms of global collapse, the reality was worse.


#1058    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 22 April 2012 - 05:17 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 22 April 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

What is so difficult for you to understand?  The crashing of the planes into the buildings would have been a sufficiently "catastrophic and catalyzing event" in and of itself.
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor."

Imagine 9/11 with the plane crashes and no building collapses.
Now consider 9/11 as it actually was, with the building collapses.

Which is best match to the damage and casualties of Pearl Harbor?

The requirement was, “like a new Pearl Harbor”.
The requirement was not, “booNy’s far less severe version of Pearl Harbor”.


View PostbooNyzarC, on 22 April 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

I said virtually impossible.  By that I mean that it is so close to impossible that it becomes implausible in my opinion.  You really are struggling with some basic concepts here Q24.
This must be the fourth or fifth time of asking…

What specific part of the WTC demolitions do you find “virtually impossible” and why?


View PostbooNyzarC, on 22 April 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

The inevitability of collapse is based on the actual conditions present, not on an effort to model those conditions.
How do you know the actual impact and fire conditions present were sufficient to cause collapse?  NIST proved there is a large range of impact and fire conditions which do not cause collapse.


View PostbooNyzarC, on 22 April 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

No, I really didn't crap all over Bazant's theory.  My statements do not disagree with Bazant in any way.  If you would actually quote Bazant fully, you'd possibly realize that.
Your previous statements do not sit with the quote you provided at all.  The whole point of Bazant’s quote is to claim that the upper and lower blocks are not destroyed at equal rates; the complete opposite of your statements.


View PostbooNyzarC, on 22 April 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

What you seem to really struggle with there is that the upper block is continuing to grow as it essentially absorbs the mass of each successive floor in the collapse.  And even though the destructive waves do propagate into both the upper and lower sections, the primary forces are taking place between the crush down front and the next floor that it impacts.
No, I haven’t even spoken about the growing mass (not block) at and above the collapse front.  It is not possible to discuss that until you acknowledge that the upper block deteriorated at an equivalent rate to the lower block.  Which… you did acknowledge in your statements… but since stepped back from.  Though to be honest, I knew that’s what you would do.

And you are still talking about literal “floors” aren’t you?  Screw the floors – the core structure was continuous throughout height of the building and that is what held the building upright.


View PostbooNyzarC, on 22 April 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

If the upper block is increasing in mass (by essentially absorbing the mass of the each failed floor) and increasing in speed (due to momentum plus gravity) its destructive force is likewise increasing as the collapse progresses.

Your hammer and metal shavings analogy does not apply here.
You are missing the point.  See above – we cannot treat the growing mass the same as a rigid block.  The block can only decrease whilst the debris mass increases.  Then what do you want dropping on your head – a solid rock or equivalent mass of sand?  The two are very different.

You need to re-acknowledge there was no nigh indestructible upper block throughout collapse.

Then we can talk about the mass that is still left falling.


View PostbooNyzarC, on 22 April 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

Do you notice that he is crying about being supposedly mistreated instead of addressing the content of Bazant's rebuttal to his uninformed criticisms?  Boo freaking Hoo :cry:
You said we need to refute Bazant’s theory in a respected journal.
I pointed out that it is not permitted to fairly refute Bazant’s theory.
Your response is “Boo freaking Hoo”.
This only shows that your original request was disingenuous.


View PostbooNyzarC, on 22 April 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

Bazant doesn't circumvent Newton's third law and you've never been able to point out where exactly he supposedly does this.
Compare your own previous statements, which correctly apply Newton’s third law, to Bazant’s quote - completely contradictory.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1059    TSS

TSS

    Observer

  • Member
  • 5,669 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • The loud ones never last!

Posted 22 April 2012 - 05:30 PM

View PostQ24, on 22 April 2012 - 05:17 PM, said:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor."

Imagine 9/11 with the plane crashes and no building collapses.
Now consider 9/11 as it actually was, with the building collapses.

Which is best match to the damage and casualties of Pearl Harbor?

The requirement was, “like a new Pearl Harbor”.
The requirement was not, “booNy’s far less severe version of Pearl Harbor”.


How do you know that the use of the phrase "like a new Pearl Harbour" isn't just a catch all phrase for the profound shock needed to push through an agenda?  No where in that sentence does it hint at what level of destruction is needed, or body count, it could just merely mean that just like Pearl Harbour, you need an equal amount of profound shock on the public!

"Equipped with his five senses, man explores the universe around him and calls the adventure Science". ~ Edwin Powell Hubble

#1060    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,147 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 April 2012 - 05:31 PM

View PostWandering, on 22 April 2012 - 06:42 AM, said:

The fact that entire floors were empty, giving a more than accessible option in which to get inside the building and plant explosives where required.
It's moot because thousands of people were killed.  :no:

Over 2000 people were inside the WTC buildings

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1061    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 22 April 2012 - 05:35 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 22 April 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

At 22 seconds in this video if I'm not mistaken?  Exactly how are you determining that the collapse momentum appears to slow at that point?
That’s the one.

I am using my eyes to determine that the collapse momentum slows – the collapse begins, speeds up, and at 0:22 slows down.  Though you and Swanny obviously don’t have great eyesight, so let’s do it another way…

The collapse begins at approximately 0:17
The halfway point in collapse is at approximately 0:22
The rest collapses by approximately 0:32

The first half of collapse is approximately twice as fast as the second half – thus clear loss of momentum.


View PostbooNyzarC, on 22 April 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

The actual collapse was not the same best case scenario that Bazant presented.  In terms of global collapse, the reality was worse.
Oh so you think it best for survival of the towers that the core columns are destroyed rather than left standing?

How bizarre  :blink:

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1062    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 22 April 2012 - 06:00 PM

View PostThe Sky Scanner, on 22 April 2012 - 05:30 PM, said:

How do you know that the use of the phrase "like a new Pearl Harbour" isn't just a catch all phrase for the profound shock needed to push through an agenda?  No where in that sentence does it hint at what level of destruction is needed, or body count, it could just merely mean that just like Pearl Harbour, you need an equal amount of profound shock on the public!
Perhaps.  Though when it states, “like a new Pearl Harbor”, I think that is a hint that the damage, casualties and shock level (which are surely interlinked) should be equivalent.

You are right though, it does not specifically detail the “level of destruction” or “body count” required (other than it should be, “like a new Pearl Harbor”).  There is another document from Neocon circles two years prior.  The following comes under the sub-heading, “Imagining the Transforming Event”: -

“An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America’s history … Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after."

http://www.hks.harva...n/terrorism.htm


It’s a little more specific.

That particular document is discussing how best to avoid such an attack (the author was no part of the 9/11 false flag).  But it does, like ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’, set out the effect that such an attack would have – a benefit to the Neocon military agenda.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1063    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 22 April 2012 - 06:05 PM

View PostQ24, on 22 April 2012 - 05:17 PM, said:

Your previous statements do not sit with the quote you provided at all.  The whole point of Bazant’s quote is to claim that the upper and lower blocks are not destroyed at equal rates; the complete opposite of your statements.
Wrong.  And I'll get to your other points later, but this is key to the discussion.

You are equating destroyed at equal rates to mean the same thing as crushed up and crushed down at equal rates.  They are not the same.  The confusion most likely stems from usage of the word "crush."  A better way to describe it would be closing the gap between itself and the next intersecting floor.

In order for the gap between floors to be closed in either direction (1) the supports between the floors must be compromised, and (2) one or both of the intersecting bodies must move toward the other in some way and (3) be compelled by some force.

In the case of a collapse like this, the upper mass is in motion and compelled by the force of gravity.  The extent to which the gaps between floors above the collapse zone can be closed is limited to the resistant force exerted by the supports of each successive floor.  As soon as those supports are compromised, the "crush up", or the closing of the gap between itself and the next intersecting floor above, stops.  The extent to which the gaps between the floors below the collapse zone is complete because once the supports are compromised, there is nothing of substance stopping the downward motion until the next floor is reached; thus closing the gap.

Do you think that you can manage to make this distinction and understand the underlying core points that this illustrates?


#1064    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,147 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 April 2012 - 07:44 PM

View PostQ24, on 22 April 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

It's a little more specific.

That particular document is discussing how best to avoid such an attack (the author was no part of the 9/11 false flag).  But it does, like 'Rebuilding America's Defenses', set out the effect that such an attack would have – a benefit to the Neocon military agenda.

That doesn't make any sense considering that:

Quote

Panetta: Military cuts to hit 'all 50 states'

The Pentagon proposed budget cuts on Thursday that would slash the size of the U.S. military by eliminating thousands of jobs, mothballing ships and trimming air squadrons in an effort to shift strategic direction and reduce spending by $487 billion over a decade.
The funding request, which includes painful cuts for many states, sets the stage for a new struggle between President Barack Obama's administration and Congress over how much the Pentagon should spend on national security as the country tries to curb trillion-dollar budget deficits.

My link

Will Obama's military cuts hurt the economy?

The plan would cut defense spending by 10 percent over the next decade, and there are worries that this could harm our ability to recover from the recession and potentially lower long-run economic growth.

My link

Because of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the government must now shell out millions upon millions of dollars each year  to support veterans who were affected by those wars, which is beyond the billions upon billions of dollars already spent and the loss of lives that were the direct result of those wars.

That doesn't sound like very good reasons to fly aircraft into buildings or crash them into the ground.

Edited by skyeagle409, 22 April 2012 - 07:54 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1065    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 22 April 2012 - 07:55 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 22 April 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

You are equating destroyed at equal rates to mean the same thing as crushed up and crushed down at equal rates.  They are not the same.  The confusion most likely stems from usage of the word "crush."  A better way to describe it would be closing the gap between itself and the next intersecting floor.
You sound very much like someone trying to fight their way out of a contradiction, and failing.  Of course "crush up/down" is the same as "damage up/down" (this is even what Bazant means when using the term "crush").  I don't accept your explanation at all and neither does it make sense.  Apart from that…

I’m not really happy talking about “floors” and “gaps” because once again, it is neither of these holding the building upright – it is the continuous core columns through the structure that must be overcome.  I’ll have to assume that by “floors” and “gaps” you mean the length of column that buckles and moves downward.  That is the only way I can make sense of your description.


View PostbooNyzarC, on 22 April 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

In the case of a collapse like this, the upper mass is in motion and compelled by the force of gravity.  The extent to which the gaps between floors above the collapse zone can be closed is limited to the resistant force exerted by the supports of each successive floor.  As soon as those supports are compromised, the "crush up", or the closing of the gap between itself and the next intersecting floor above, stops.
I stopped your quote above at this point to add – if the “crush up” stops in that moment, due to the columns immediately below being compromised, then likewise does the “crush down” stop.  You would probably say (if I’m understanding the rest of what you said), “no, because gravity continues the downward motion of the compromised columns” – but this is wrong because it is always momentum of the upper block (which is already faster than gravity can accelerate the compromised columns from a standing start) driving the compromised columns downward.

The upper block, lower block and debris between all come together in the same moment and equal and opposite damage must occur.  So long as those three elements of the building are always in contact (which they have to be because it is a continuous structure) and momentum of the upper block is driving the collapse (not just gravity accelerating the newly compromised columns from a stand still at each… “floor”), there will always be equal and opposite damage.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users