Reply #75: No, you do not [View All]

[William Seger]

> "Saying 'The buildings collapsed totally because the falling masses delivered more impact force than the strength of the lower structure could withstand.' just doesn't explain it."

Yes, it does explain it -- to anyone who understands what those forces were and what the lower structure could withstand. I've given you a short qualitative description -- a structure that was designed to carry three times its expected load was hit with a dynamic force about eight times that much -- and Bazant's paper gives the precise quantitative justification for that description. In fact, Bazant's analysis is a simplified model that represents the best possible (but unrealistic) scenario where the structure put up its maximum resistance to the collapse. In reality, the building failed mainly by being ripped apart at its structural connections, and the lost structural integrity meant that the collapse required even less force than crushing the columns.

Your inability to understand these things is nobody's problem but your own. Even though you don't have the first foggy notion about either the forces involved or what the structures could withstand, you keep claiming Bazant must be wrong because it doesn't fit your totally imaginary physics, which were invented for the sole purpose of rationalizing your demolition delusions. And even though you won't be able to find a single qualified engineer who can write a peer-reviewed quantitative analysis agreeing with you, you'll keep saying it. But you're never going to convince anyone you're right except for equally ignorant people. And even if there is eventually another 9/11 investigation, it won't take long to dispense with this sort of demolition silliness, because it's based on bullshit.

In short, you are a perfect example of why the majority of the "truth movement" is hopelessly stuck in the mud and has nothing but a very sad and disappointed future ahead of it.