Posted: Nov 30, 2010 3:09 am
by econ41
hotshoe wrote:
Patriots4Truth wrote:... collapse scenarios that support natural collapse are relatively new ...

That's a lie.

Go ahead and retract it. It might do you good to tell the truth.

The first one was published when - 13 Sept 2001? Bazant & Zhou proved that global collapse was inevitable by showing that, even in the worst case for collapse (or best case for building survival if you prefer it that way round) there was more than enough energy to collapse the building.

And - side comment for psik's bit of nonsense about:
psikeyhackr wrote:...the thicker the columns the more energy required to crush the level....
...bullshit as psik is well aware. The collapse which actually happened did not crush the columns - even though Bazant & Zhou showed that there was enough energy to do so.

I referred psik to postings on "the911forum" which is a truther friendly forum with some good discussion of technical matters. psik has been a member there (may still be but not active AFAICS) AND the material I referred him to is an analysis by an acknowledged truther which closely parallels my own explanation for the global collapses of the twin towers. Worth a read by any one here seeking an alternate perspective which reaches the same conclusion - "no demolition needed during 'global collapse'"

And another note for relatively new members to this thread - ie those who only joined since ratskep forum was set up OR in the last few months of RDNet. psikeyhackr was a long term poster on RDNet 9/11 topic and you can take it as given that he has been informed of all the relevant arguments many times. He has made some quite good models to illustrate aspects of the Twin Towers collapses. Sadly all of them off target as to what really happened. But commendable effort just the same.