The NIST report, start to finish, page 28

privacy

Pages: << 25 26 27 28 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times

reply posted on 27-5-2011 @ 08:47 PM by bsbray11

Originally posted by esdad71
No, I am not saying all papers, you are.

Actually I just explicitly said that not all papers published are scientifically proven. Once again your reading comprehension completely fails you.

Can you name 2 other papers that Bazant procured where he has so blatantly produced physics garbage as you had stated.

The more relevant question is, can you show me a paper written by Bazant that doesn't use garbage physics? And would you even be able to tell? (No.)

I think anyone would take this resume...

If you want to just compare resumes and make it a pissing contest then Steven Jones has all these guys beat hands down.

It's funny that instead of talking about the actual physics in the paper you're already retreating to trying to make it an issue of who has a longer resume. I guess you have nothing else to say about the physics of the paper.

You have no idea what the paper even says or why it's wrong, you just want to argue about it because you don't want to think that Bazant might actually be wrong, as that would be one more crack in your glass house.

reply posted on 27-5-2011 @ 09:01 PM by esdad71

reply to post by bsbray11

No, you asked me what a peer reviewed paper is. Or what it is like to be published. Why can't you show me the other papers that he wrote that were so incorrect. You brought it up. I am just asking you to back up what you say. This is no pissing contest but you are attempting to discredit someone who seems to have his stuff together.

Why can't you pick a part of the paper your debunker does not cover and show where it is incorrect. I read them both and know that he does not go into everything. So, since you do not want me to provide you a subject like I did and you rejected, then choose one. Obviously you think it is all garbage.

I am also not defending a paper, but the fact that you cannot discredit without proof and so far you have not presented any. You have simply given a link to someone who has not his own ideas but attempts to explain why someone else is incorrect. This way they never have to prove anything but can accuse. Like a bad trial lawyer.

Just as you have not given any proof that the findings NIST reported and have implemented are not correct in this thread and it has once again been derailed.

reply posted on 27-5-2011 @ 09:10 PM by bsbray11

Originally posted by esdad71
No, you asked me what a peer reviewed paper is. Or what it is like to be published.

Nope, reading comprehension failing again.

Why can't you show me the other papers that he wrote that were so incorrect. You brought it up.

The very fact that he had to revise the same model several times is proof enough that he was screwing up something.

Why can't you pick a part of the paper your debunker does not cover and show where it is incorrect

Bazant only has to screw up in a few places for his whole conclusion to be thrown off. And that is exactly the case here. You have been repeatedly shown the errors he has made and you just keep asking for more. You just don't get it do you?

Just as you have not given any proof that the findings NIST reported and have implemented are not correct in this thread and it has once again been derailed.

NIST didn't prove anything in the first place. I've asked you a million times to show what NIST proved and where and not once have you been able to do it. It's not my job to go through the NIST report and post the entire thing showing where they never proved anything. If they proved anything you, or someone, would be able to show what and where. The fact is not even NIST claims their report was conclusive as to why those buildings fell. You are extremely confused.

reply posted on 27-5-2011 @ 10:26 PM by esdad71

reply to post by bsbray11

There is no failure in reading comprehension, you are just not providing what I asked for. You can keep telling someone they do not understand and it does not suddenly make it true. It is not that I misunderstand but that I do not agree.

Again, show me another Bazant report that is such garbage if you claim they are out there. You won't because you will claim you do not have too...

reply posted on 27-5-2011 @ 10:42 PM by bsbray11

reply to post by esdad71

If the error I keep explaining to you isn't actually an error, then can you please explain to me why gravity loads would not be transferred down the building if the upper block Bazant talks about suddenly free-falls and slams into the lower block?

reply posted on 28-5-2011 @ 04:09 PM by esdad71

reply to post by bsbray11

I never said it was an error or not. I just wanted you to try to debunk something on your own. Just like the thread which is based on the NIST report. What about the report can be incorrect if they implemented the suggestions in new buildings. Does this mean that all new buildings are not built properly based on your perception.

reply posted on 28-5-2011 @ 07:11 PM by Darkwing01

reply to post by esdad71

I never said it was an error or not. I just wanted you to try to debunk something on your own. Just like the thread which is based on the NIST report. What about the report can be incorrect if they implemented the suggestions in new buildings. Does this mean that all new buildings are not built properly based on your perception.

I think this has been asked before, but could you enlighten us on precisely what these supposed changes to the building code are?

I thought it was a unique event that could only happen in those specific buildings after a super heavy jumbo aircraft zoomed into it and created a raging inferno more raging than the towering inferno?

reply posted on 28-5-2011 @ 07:41 PM by ANOK

reply to post by esdad71

If you actually looked at those changes none of them really have anything to do with buildings collapsing. They are safety changes concerning the fire code for the safety of tenants, fire responders etc. The claim that more fire proofing would have prevented the collapses is just opinion, there are no facts to support that claim, it's just based on the NIST myth of knocked off fireproofing. Wider stairways do not stop buildings collapsing. Requiring stronger structural elements, in new buildings, doesn't prove the WTC was inadequate and collapsed from fire.

Why are they not urgently retrofitting old buildings of the same design, if they are so dangerously susceptible to instant global collapse from fire? Obviously they are not, and neither was the WTC buildings.

I'm surprised you expect people to automatically believe NIST anyway, when you know it's NIST who is in question here. Changes, based on excepted lies, doesn't make the lies truth.

reply posted on 28-5-2011 @ 08:03 PM by bsbray11

Originally posted by esdad71
I never said it was an error or not. I just wanted you to try to debunk something on your own.

What difference does it make whether or not I was the first one to find this error in Bazant's work? Can you explain how a dynamic gravity load would not be transferred down the building like Bazant assumes, or not?

reply posted on 29-5-2011 @ 12:35 PM by esdad71

reply to post by Darkwing01

This is a link to the site. Your statements are both false.

wtc.nist.gov...

The FIRST one states ...

Provide minimum structural integrity for framed and bearing wall structures through continuity and tie-force requirements for buildings over 75 ft. in height that represent a substantial hazard to human life in the even of failure (e.g., buildings with occupant loads exceeding 5,000) and essential facilities, such as hospitals.) This code change is intended to enhance overall structural integrity but is not intended to prevent progressive collapse in structures.

To ANOK, the debate ghost,

It also talks about wind tunnel testing and load bearing, etc..etc...Read the documents and not LINKS to the documents that are picked apart by other people who do not believe something.

Yes, it did also include things such as making sure that ADA laws are applied since the WTC did not have sufficeint exit strategy for hadnicapped employees and visitors.

reply posted on 29-5-2011 @ 12:38 PM by esdad71

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by esdad71
I never said it was an error or not. I just wanted you to try to debunk something on your own.

What difference does it make whether or not I was the first one to find this error in Bazant's work? Can you explain how a dynamic gravity load would not be transferred down the building like Bazant assumes, or not?

It does not matter if you were the first one, but you are basing a belief on someone who is not showing a solution but simply saying something else is incorrect.

reply posted on 29-5-2011 @ 06:05 PM by bsbray11

Originally posted by esdad71
It does not matter if you were the first one, but you are basing a belief on someone who is not showing a solution but simply saying something else is incorrect.

No, esdad, now you are lying.

The fact that Bazant does not account for energy dissipated into the lower floors of his bottom block of floors is plainly obvious in his own paper.

If I'm wrong then you would be able to show where he accounts for such energy dissipation. As it stands, it's nowhere to be found. This means Bazant was pretending that all the energy went only to destroying the topmost floor instead of any of it being absorbed by the lower structure, which is physically impossible, just like it would be physically impossible for someone to jump onto your shoulders without you feeling any additional weight.

reply posted on 29-5-2011 @ 09:24 PM by esdad71

reply to post by bsbray11

So, you are saying now since it is not there than it is his fault for omitting it. He covers it in the other sections. Read the document. Seriously. THat is why i have been asking you to point it out because that statement does not exist. Therefore, if it does not exist, it means it was created based on what someone thought was correct, in this case, the link you provide to the one attempting to discredit Bazant.

reply posted on 29-5-2011 @ 09:30 PM by bsbray11

Originally posted by esdad71
So, you are saying now since it is not there than it is his fault for omitting it.

Uh, yes? Whose fault should it be if he neglected to correctly apply all the relevant physical laws? Please don't tell me it's my fault.

He covers it in the other sections. Read the document. Seriously.

I have read the document, esdad. If you've read it then post the section you think explains why he didn't account for the energy absorption of the lower block.

THat is why i have been asking you to point it out because that statement does not exist. Therefore, if it does not exist, it means it was created based on what someone thought was correct, in this case, the link you provide to the one attempting to discredit Bazant.

Alright, this flat-out makes absolutely no sense.

I've already explained to you numerous times what was omitted. Gordon Ross also explained it himself in his own paper. You are purposefully being obtuse because you can't even comprehend being wrong about this. You apparently don't even comprehend what we are actually even talking about in the actual context of Bazant's paper.

Do you want to take this to the debate forum or not? The subject will be "Did Bazant accurately apply physical laws in his WTC collapse model?" Yes or no? I'll contact a moderator myself, we can agree over u2u or whatever other formalities we have to go through.

edit on 29-5-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 3-6-2011 @ 04:30 PM by esdad71

Sorry, I thought this thread was over and did not see you updated it.

I was asking you to show me in the paper where he makes that mistake that was pointed out by Ross. It was not in the original paper. So what I was trying to say is that there is no sense in debating something Ross created and tried to argue that was not even in the original paper.

See you in the trenches....

As far as a debate, I am not going to debate this paper. It would be a waste. If we were to debate, it should be whether or not the laws of physics were applied on 9/11. They fell. Therefore, the laws of science worked but is it that we do not understand how it could happen or is it not as simple as some would want us to believe.

reply posted on 3-6-2011 @ 04:33 PM by bsbray11

Originally posted by esdad71
I was asking you to show me in the paper where he makes that mistake that was pointed out by Ross.

The mistake was an omission of physical laws that require forces and energy to be absorbed by the floors in the lower block. By omitting this physics, Bazant's physics are out the window.

Now comes where you claim ignorance and say we're just making this up and nothing was omitted, right?

Again, if you were carrying people on your shoulders, and someone else jumped on suddenly, you're claiming you wouldn't be able to feel it at the bottom? That is the exact same nonsense Bazant is peddling in his paper, among other fallacies that were pointed out to you earlier.

As far as a debate, I am not going to debate this paper.

That says it all.

reply posted on 3-6-2011 @ 05:21 PM by ANOK

Originally posted by esdad71
As far as a debate, I am not going to debate this paper.

Then you should stop using it as a crutch every time your arguments fail.

To debate if the laws of physics were applied is nonsense, and shows you fail to understand what is meant when we say the laws of physics were ignored or suspended. You pick up on those sayings but fail to understand, or ignore, why we say that. You take it out of context.

The laws would only have to have been ignored IF we are to believe your explanation of the collapses. This is why I believe an extra force had to have been involved in order to explain the missing link. Then the collapses would be perfectly explainable using the laws of motion.

How do you explain the missing link? And yes there is a missing link esdad, at least have the honesty to except that.

reply posted on 3-6-2011 @ 06:02 PM by esdad71

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by esdad71
As far as a debate, I am not going to debate this paper.

Then you should stop using it as a crutch every time your arguments fail.

To debate if the laws of physics were applied is nonsense, and shows you fail to understand what is meant when we say the laws of physics were ignored or suspended. You pick up on those sayings but fail to understand, or ignore, why we say that. You take it out of context.

The laws would only have to have been ignored IF we are to believe your explanation of the collapses. This is why I believe an extra force had to have been involved in order to explain the missing link. Then the collapses would be perfectly explainable using the laws of motion.

How do you explain the missing link? And yes there is a missing link esdad, at least have the honesty to except that.