You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #176: Wrong, and wrong again [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #123
176. Wrong, and wrong again
Edited on Wed Nov-11-09 01:16 AM by William Seger
> The building partially collapsed ...

As I already pointed out to you, the part that collapsed totally was an independent structure. The part still standing is really a structurally separate building -- separated by an expansion joint. Your misunderstanding of that point does not change the significance of the total collapse.

> Never proven.

The same kind of math that's used to design buildings was used to prove that the structure could not possibly absorb that kinetic energy, and your uninformed concurrence is not required.

> If it had been proven, NIST would have applied Bazant's theory to explain the WTC collapse...

NIST did "appl(y) Bazant's theory to explain the WTC collapse." Bazant's paper is the first cited reference in section 9.5 of the NIST NCSTAR 1-6 document.

> ...rather than having to admit, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".

Typical "truther" out-of-context quote-mining. The part of the quote that your "truther" propaganda source left out was that the sentence actually began with "As we mentioned previously, ..." That's a reference to the previous paragraph of the same letter which said, "NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occurring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution." They were "unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse" using their computer model. And both paragraphs are contained in a section of the letter entitled "The Goal of the WTC Report and Its Overall Analysis," in which NIST was simply responding to Gourley's misunderstanding of the NIST charter: It was tasked with determining the most probable cause of the collapse, not with coming up with "a full explanation of the total collapse" with a computer simulation. Unlike you, NIST and the vast majority of the structural engineers in the world understand why that would be completely unnecessary: Like most buildings, the structure was not strong enough to withstand the collapse after it got started, and Bazant's cited analysis explains why that's so.

Fail. Better look for another straw.

ETA: LOL, I guess I should have read all the other responses before responding. I see you've already been chewed out for your out-of-context quote-mining. I also see that it just bounced off your shield of invincible ignorance. Oh, well, I trust that no sensible person here has any real hope of convincing you that you are wrong. I'll settle for the much more achievable objective of demonstrating that you don't know what you're talking about.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC