I have to concur with Dr G. on the above issues.
The simplifications, limitations and errors of the refined Bazant model are not significant in terms of the outcome of collapse progression. I believe the single largest error is the collapse time (which is grossly underestimated) and when corrected gives them even more room for error.
Nonetheless, the BLGB paper does not deal with initiation, which is the key unsolved issue in my mind. On this issue we have only NIST's model and analysis. The issues with this analysis are many, but in my mind, the effect of errors or simplifications cancel each other out. I don't remember if we have an "initiation" thread, but it would be a useful topic to revisit. Most important, I think, is that the load distribution between the core and perimeter, which when corrected may not have required tweaking the model. This, especially in combination with bending of the entire structure (associated O with the initial impact as predicted by NIST's impact model) seems to outweigh any errors in the removal of fire proofing or tweaking of the model.
That is fair enough and as I've stated, I'm not here to argue the merits of Bazants paper as most of it will fly above my head, so I'll leave that to all of you in the know for now. I think I'm being misunderstood here so I'll try and elaborate a little....
I profoundly admire your forum Greg, its a place of tranquillity and peace without the cheerleading of other forums. I'm sure most members would agree with me that this is one of the best 9/11 forums around. You should be proud of making this forums safe haven for critical thinking and it's quite liberating, in that there should be no offence in discussing our thoughts and theories regarding 9/11 whether we agree or not. Being able to discuss topics knowing that if you are respectful as most of us are naturally, that the same respect will shown back to you makes this place what it is, even if it is a little quiet. While that is no bad thing, I hope that your forum continues to grow with like minded individuals who realise that thoughts don't really hurt any one, so there is no need for anger or attacks.
I'm not here to argue whether Bazants theory is right or wrong as such for the simple reason you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe, for our own different reasons.
What I am arguing for is MORE skepticism.
So let us be honest with ourselves because we can.......
I think we can safely agree that one of the key questions the NIST were tasked with doing, they never did. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here years later trying to understand and explain why and how the towers actually collapsed. NIST did some great work, but even some of the most vocal NISTIAN knows they do some poor work. I also think we pretty much agree that NIST don't always connect the dots.
There are many reasons we could speculate as to why NIST didn't do what they were suppose to, like the fact they didn't have enough metal to look at or their budget and time constraints. So from the start, we have to consider that NIST they didn't have the tools for the job so to speak, therefore we can't assert they got everything correct because they clearly didn't, we can't assert they got everything wrong either because they clearly didn't.
Sounds confusing huh? Well that is how true skepticism work! NIST could be possibly be right and NIST could be possibly wrong.
I personally believe that NIST could be more wrong than right in their conclusion, others will naturally believe otherwise, disagree and believe that NIST could more right than wrong to the same or varying degrees. Thankfully, we are all rational people here and not as extreme as some debunker or conspiracy theorists are and would never conclude than anything in NIST was 100% true or even 100% false.
Which brings me on to Bazants theory which initially was created 2 days after the attacks. There is a fundamental flaw before he has even started, it would be like trying to guess who the murder is by looking at CCTV footage, because that is all Bazant had to work at that time. Now when NIST was released, Bazant no doubt looked at NIST and used their findings, data figures and his expertise to refine his model and created his latest version. This is not a criticism of Bazant or even his model but again, being a skeptic he could be right or he could be wrong but:-
If NIST are right, then Bazant theory as an increased chance of being correct.
If NIST are wrong, then Bazant theory as an increased chance of being wrong.
More importantly even if we assume that NIST are right, it still doesn't make Bazants paper correct because his paper is based on it's own merits, just like NIST's work.
After listening to the arguments from both sides over the years, I do not see defenders of the official theories both NIST and Bazant address the points raised, not in any technical or laymans terms. I think people like Gordon Ross, Hewia, Alan Mark Sauer and others make some very valid and critical arguments against Bazants/NIST theory which I feel from a laymans point these views need addressing.
I don't know much about science, but from my understand, if there are reasons to doubt a theory, then the theory is highly unlikely to be possible. Doesn't mean it is wrong, just not likely.
Until these points are addressed, then I have to object to the perception that Bazants model is the "definitive" one as in correct/most likely true theory. Dr.G calls their criticisms nit picking and you might agree, but I have to challenge it for it goes against a fundamental rule of skepticism by denying opponents claims rather than doubting them and the double standard in the application of criticisms, if his own criticisms of WTC 7 report are valid enough to doubt NIST claims seeing as they have no answer to Dr.G criticisms, then others criticisms which have not been answered are just as valid to doubt Bazants claims.
No other alternatives theories have ever been truly explored with the exception Jones and Wood but lets not go down the Woods Road but by comparison, they have barely been touched. Demolitions theory are dismissed pretty much before they have been mentioned or even viewed. The reason for this is because no amount of time, or effort, money and research as ever been consider into looking into alternative theories.
Face it, most people switch off as soon as they hear word conspiracy theory especially when followed by the immortal words of controlled demolition. I know I did when 1st heard them because they sounded stupid, preposterous and even impossible, considering the high unplausibility of doing such a thing, it's horrifying to think about it. How could they do such a evil thing? How could we think such a evil thing?
We know that explosives were never tested for, so how does that make a demolition theory less viable or even deserving of less attention when it hasn't been ruled out? Dr.G as his AP theory which I have read and it sound like quite a plausible theory on face value yet I haven't seen much work going to improving that theory. Why not? Isn't this what skepticism is about and science about testing new ideass?
I'm not criticising Dr.G but I'm guessing it is because he personally believes they are not needed as Bazant/NIST do a great job and probably explains it the best, yet that could biasing his view on alternative theories?
And we have to look at the probability that Bazant could be wrong, hence the skepticism. Personal beliefs have to be put aside when looking at any theory, even if we accept that NIST and Bazant are the bee knees! So at what point do you take a further look because I think its time we started seriously looking at the alternative theories as the reasons for not looking for them are not logical reason, but psychological reasons or should I say excuses. Although to be honest, I think WTC 7 will certainly open more eyes...
If being a skeptic suggests that nothing is 100% right or wrong, then why not look at alternative theories? I honestly believe that if the same time and effort was into working on alternative theories as was with the official theory, we would have a better model. A crazy thought ain't it!
The reasons I believe this is because a demolition theory doesn't ignore evidence which official accounts do. Yet it's never been seriously looked, with nowhere near as much time or effort spent at looking into possibility that an alternative theory might be a better model.
That is not skepticism in any way shape or form.
What disappoints me the most is that because of the stigma associated with thinking about the possibility that it was controlled demolition or should I say thinking critically, is that people are almost to afraid to think about let alone talk about them without abuse no matter which position no matter which side your bread is buttered so to speak. I find it both hilarious and sad to think that by asking question about 9/11 can cause so much harm, where even thought experiments with people on a forum is considered taboo or too twoofy in what is suppose to be a free world! I understand that there are emotional ties to the events of 9/11, but if we are to understand what happened that day, then we need to put our emotions aside and more importantly our beliefs. We have to think critically and even if that means adventuring our minds and thoughts into the absurd demolition crap. If that is what the evidence tells us or implies then it's can't be that absurd.
Ignoring things which show us to be wrong as strangely crossed over into what passes for so called critical thinking. The burden of proof is on the government yet people are still blinded by this fact and think it is up to others to come up with better theories, but when other theories won't even be considered or even entertained because of our beliefs, it is self defeating. A prime example of this foolishness is that Osama planned 9/11, even though there is no evidence for it, yet people still believe it even though the government as not proven his guilt.
Hambone wrote:I believe I can address each of the anomalies, at least with regard to WTC1 + 2, in such a way that an alternative explanation to CD has an equal or higher probability. I suggest starting a thread in the WTC1 + 2 subforum to deal with the anomalies. I had started addressing these on the STJ911 forum, but the moderator there and many of the posters were very hostile to anyone wanting to address them in any depth, especially because they are all expainable without CD.
Everything is explainable, as a skeptics, it is a golden rule.
To be honest Greg, I would rather us just look into the demolition hypothesis for the simple reason we have been looking at the official hypothesis for far too long. I'm open to the possibility that the official story does explain the anomalies, but what I struggle to understand how investigators who were there examining the WTC couldn't explain it and were scratching their heads to find a plausible and explainable theory for the anomalies.
It might be a good to open up official theory vs alternative theory thread to test it out our ideas, as this might give us a greater platform to build a model that doesn't ignore the evidence.
Sorry for the long post, but I wish others could be more open and understanding to other ideas and possibilities. We would all be much further along in understanding the events of 9/11.
This forum as many great, clever, smart and wise people and I think it would be a shame for those to not step into the woo so to speak for a while and use the platform you have created to testing out alternative ideas in the peace and harmony that is your forum.
A laughing dog free zone! I had better not tempt fate! lol