The 9/11 Forum

Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues

Skip to content

v

Welcome
Welcome!

Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been temporarily enabled; take advantage of it!

COMMENTS - tfk / Szamboti debate

Restricted format debate threads and associated comment threads.

COMMENTS - tfk / Szamboti debate

Postby OneWhiteEye » Sat Jun 18, 2016 11:39 pm

This is a place to comment on the debate. If anyone feels like starting their own thread, feel free.

I'll be gone beginning tomorrow and back a couple of days after it starts. Enjoy.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6175
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

 

Re: COMMENTS - tfk / Szamboti debate

Postby ozeco41 » Wed Jun 22, 2016 12:15 am

I see that Tony has posted his opening statement.

A restating of his personal experiences and about four of his standard technical claims made in the form of bare assertions and in support of a call for a "New Investigation".

1) No or not enough steel collected for examination;
2) NIST didn't explain fee fall at WTC7
3) Literal misapplication of Bazant's limit case;
4) Details omitted from WTC (Edit - I meant WTC7. :oops: ) FE Analysis;

AND

5) "...the controlled demolition hypothesis best fits the evidence."

Nothing new and no supporting argument this stage.

Lets see what arguments - if any - are called into play.
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: COMMENTS - tfk / Szamboti debate

Postby DGM » Wed Jun 22, 2016 12:22 am

I also must note he considers the Bazant works to be a representation of the "official" collapse hypothesis.

Repeating Oz's # 3.
DGM
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: COMMENTS - tfk / Szamboti debate

Postby einsteen » Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:09 am

I think it is fair to consider Bazant's work such a representation because what would it be otherwise?
einsteen
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:19 pm

Re: COMMENTS - tfk / Szamboti debate

Postby DGM » Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:23 am

einsteen wrote:I think it is fair to consider Bazant's work such a representation because what would it be otherwise?


A limiting case. That's what it was always presented as. It was not a representation of reality.
DGM
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: COMMENTS - tfk / Szamboti debate

Postby ozeco41 » Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:25 am

DGM wrote:I also must note he considers the Bazant works to be a representation of the "official" collapse hypothesis.
Given the relevant dates of B&Z and Bazant is must be the other way round - if in fact there is any dependency.

B&V is a different issue which I wont comment on at this stage given the published views of both our debaters on that one. :mrgreen:

The whole range of both sides confusions over "Limits of Bazant" may well rear their ugly heads...

...again :roll:

DGM wrote:Repeating Oz's # 3.
Yes - I'm avoiding third party debates - at least at this stage.

BTW My #4 was intended to be WTC7 explicit - so I've edited the post to insert the missing numeral.
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: COMMENTS - tfk / Szamboti debate

Postby ozeco41 » Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:32 am

einsteen wrote:I think it is fair to consider Bazant's work such a representation because what would it be otherwise?
I'm not sure that I follow what you are saying.

Bazant's work - specifically B&Z - was published before any official reports.

Then - as DGM has said - B&Z was explicitly a "limit case" - B&Z said in effect - 'the real thing is too hard to explain at this stage BUT no matter what here is a "limit case" argument that proves there was more than enough energy in the best case for survival limit' .

AFAICS only one acdemic paper has questioned that conclusion. Guess who was the #2 co-author. :wink:
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: COMMENTS - tfk / Szamboti debate

Postby DGM » Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:45 am

ozeco41 wrote:
DGM wrote:I also must note he considers the Bazant works to be a representation of the "official" collapse hypothesis.
Given the relevant dates of B&Z and Bazant is must be the other way round - if in fact there is any dependency.

B&V is a different issue which I wont comment on at this stage given the published views of both our debaters on that one. :mrgreen:

The whole range of both sides confusions over "Limits of Bazant" may well rear their ugly heads...

...again :roll:

DGM wrote:Repeating Oz's # 3.
Yes - I'm avoiding third party debates - at least at this stage.

BTW My #4 was intended to be WTC7 explicit - so I've edited the post to insert the missing numeral.

I get confused when it comes to the Bazant works as they relate to 9/11. From the get go they were a limit case as far as I remember. They were what could happen in a perfect world. I don't live there and this subject is almost a decade past. The fact Tony still brings it up is telling in my opinion.
DGM
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: COMMENTS - tfk / Szamboti debate

Postby ozeco41 » Wed Jun 22, 2016 2:36 am

DGM wrote:I get confused when it comes to the Bazant works as they relate to 9/11. From the get go they were a limit case as far as I remember. They were what could happen in a perfect world. I don't live there and this subject is almost a decade past. The fact Tony still brings it up is telling in my opinion.
It is not only truthers who remain confused. Tony cannot afford to clear up his own confusion - it would bring down his magnum opus 'Missing Jolt'. BUT many debunkers share - without realising it - the second of Tony's misconceptions - specifically the "Top Block" never did and never could "drop to impact" in te manner of the B&Z "limit case" which Tony improperly takes as literal.

So this is how the various bits fit together:

1) B&Z 2002 was the first paper which introduced the "limit case" model - B&Z assumed (AKA "pretended") that the Top Block "dropped" through a gap to impact "top part of column" on its own "bottom part". It never happend. (And never could - you couldn't set it up if you tried. Needs a ruddy big crane AFAICS :wink: )

2) NIST appears to have relied on that limit case in support of "global collapse was inevitable" - there is an ironic "side track" to that - but bottom line is NIST's CONCLUSION was correct because we now understand ROOSD (at least on THIS forum :mrgreen: - so even if Bazant in B&Z was wrong with the numbers NIST's conclusion stands on better understanding of the real mechanism.

3) Tony took that "limit case" literally as the premise for "Missing Jolt" (and he has been many times advised (a) That he is wrong; (b) Why he is wrong and (c) precisely what really happend.)

4) The contention between a few of us and the dominant debunkers comes in with B&V 2007 (so after NIST) - It introduced "crush down/crush up" which I and a minority of others say cannot apply to Twin Towers progression. There are three fatal reasons. BUT it involves daring to disagree with Bazant....AKA "lèse-majesté".
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: COMMENTS - tfk / Szamboti debate

Postby ozeco41 » Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:15 pm

Well tfk has posted.

Comments about leopards and spots could be appropriate. BOTH parties had indicated - and I thought agreed - that they intended to discuss the topic without their usual overlay of side issues, personal commentary and other debating tricks.

So much for the "Terms of Agreement" - Tony would have solid grounds for withdrawing at this point.
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: COMMENTS - tfk / Szamboti debate

Postby ozeco41 » Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:50 pm

I see that a restart has been requested.

8 minutes later than my previous post whatever that means in your time zone.
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: COMMENTS - tfk / Szamboti debate

Postby SanderO » Thu Jun 23, 2016 12:03 am

The limit case is hardly an explanation.
What most people wanted to know what HOW did they come apart as we saw... not that they did... we have eyes... we saw it.... we don't have radar and we didn't at the time know much about the structure. Without knowledge of the latter the collapses CANNOT be understood or explained.

The Weidlingler report... long... does have detailed mechanisms which on cursory inspection looks pretty rigorous and plausible.... but again... based on fire / heat assumptions... which ANY explanation is forced to use.
SanderO
 
Posts: 1976
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:29 am
Location: ny

Re: COMMENTS - tfk / Szamboti debate

Postby SanderO » Thu Jun 23, 2016 12:17 am

I think the debate seems way too wide open... I think it should be limited to some specific "observations" that there is disagreement about... what they were and or what they mean? that sort of thing.
SanderO
 
Posts: 1976
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:29 am
Location: ny

Re: COMMENTS - tfk / Szamboti debate

Postby ozeco41 » Thu Jun 23, 2016 1:37 am

SanderO wrote:The limit case is hardly an explanation.
Who has said that it is? Whatever it is only "on-topic" here if either participant raises it OR someone such as DGM wants to understand where authoritative claims/papers/reports fit into the "debate".

The remaining two issues of your post can be discussed in relevant threads.
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: COMMENTS - tfk / Szamboti debate

Postby ozeco41 » Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:07 am

SanderO wrote:I think the debate seems way too wide open...
It is not a "debate" in the normal meaning of the term. With an agreed topic - a supporter of the topic and an opponent.

"Discusion" or "argument" is probably more appropriate. Sadly it probably reflects the general lack of clarity of focus demonstrated by many of those involved in Internet forum discussion. Including both participants.

SanderO wrote: I think it should be limited to some specific "observations" that there is disagreement about... what they were and or what they mean? that sort of thing.

It should be debate of defined propositions (a "resolution" or possibly a sequence of them) with one party taking the "affirmative" and the other party taking the "negative".

That would greatly reduce the opportunities for either party to play their usual tricks.
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Next



Return to Debate Area

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

suspicion-preferred