It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Here's a hypothetical question for you, answer if you want -

If the planes hit the building, but it didn't collapse globally..... do you have an opinion about whether or not it would be able to be repaired and put back into use?

Cuz I see losing the upper block as a terminal event anyways. No hat truss, no elevators, etc.

Just curious, no need to answer...


You have to define "not collapse globally" a bit more. Do you mean partial collapse? Or do you mean just plane damage? Do you mean plane damage and partial floors collapsing?

If you meant no collapse at all, then possibly. It's really hard to judge at this standpoint whether it would have or not. The only real way to know would have been if it had stood. Then we could do an analysis.

So, you want me to answer a hypothetical but just within the last couple days have ridiculed me for using hypotheticals?



[edit on 2/9/2009 by Griff]




posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

1-If you meant no collapse at all, then possibly. It's really hard to judge at this standpoint whether it would have or not. The only real way to know would have been if it had stood. Then we could do an analysis.

2-So, you want me to answer a hypothetical but just within the last couple days have ridiculed me for using hypotheticals?



1- yes, this is what I meant. Thx.

2- The difference is, the TM has nothing but what ifs, speculation, and remotely possible to push their beliefs about 9/11. I have no motive other than just asking your opinion. I don't intend to use a hypothetical as proof of anything.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
I don't intend to use a hypothetical as proof of anything.


See, this is the problem you have with me. You think I do.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

See, this is the problem you have with me. You think I do.



I said the TM. Are you part of the TM now?

The problem I have with you is the intellectual cowardice to discuss real issues honestly.

I take issue with you avoiding ithese ssues, like the topic of the thread.

You COULD clear it up for the TM'erz here and explain to them how this is indeed an engineering exercise that gives every advantage to halting the collapse by examining a collapse scenario that is impossible.... but even given those advantages, this paper proves that the columns would be overloaded by a factor of 8.4, IIRC.

But you don't. I have no idea why not, cuz this wouldn't mean that it couldn't have been initiated by whatever nefarious means, which still could mean that planes/fire weren't the only thing that caused the collapses.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Funny how you take issue with me for doing the same as NIST? Very telling indeed.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Funny how you take issue with me for doing the same as NIST? Very telling indeed.



Evasion noted.

Again.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


I'm not evading anything. I've already stated that Bazant's math is correct.

I just don't agree with NIST's initiation.

There. Happy?



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
NIST should be investigated for fraud and deception. I have no trust in this institute since their bogus reporting on wtc7. They are no better than a bunch of overpaid lawyers.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join