It is the logic that deserves an answer. Your failure to answer implies you assent to the conclusion at the end of the above chain of inductive reasoning. Yet, it seems clear that you do not so assent. So, where is your contribution in responding without answering? Additionally, your failure to recognize my contribution to the discussion does not negate it.:roll:
Further, your "divide and conquer" strategem is transparent. My argument only supports an aspect of Bman's recent post. Apparently, reading for comprehension is not your forte. When Bman talks about "the way the world works", he's not referring to physics. He's talking about the politics of power, and the fundamental role played by money. For instance, government "research" money is crucial to every large university. The university loses if the government investment doesn't pay off. The "pay off" is the results that serve the government's interests in having the "research" done in the first place. As I said before (and it went unchallenged, BTW), the past couple of decades have been rife with scandals of scientific findings corrupted to satisfy the "customer", the party that paid for the findings. And these are the scientists in which you place all your confidence! At the same time you've dismissed or ridiculed other scientists, who've undergone the same training as the scientists you've chosen to "believe", because their results aren't what you want to "believe". When I've asked you to address this seeming inconsistency you've been characteristically unresponsive, even to the point of not acknowledging that the inconsistency was pointed out to you.
You are correct, but I wasn't ONLY talking about the politics of power and money, but ALSO the physics.
It's actually growing somewhat common that there seems to be this attempt to push this idea of the democratization of science; like with global warming, they say "there's consensus of scientists", which is great, if they had truly made their case then everyone WOULD agree, much like how nobody rejects the concept of gravity. However, it goes further and if scientists come out and attempt to disprove this concept, then it's not the validity of the science that gets debated, but rather the weight of the number of scientists pushing a position. This is an oversimplification as well.
[quote[
I may be accused of being
too subtle, or
too strategic to be very effective, but, clearly, if
anyone could be accused of
not debating, it would
have to be
you,
by definition, since you've refused to engage either logical or contextual points (at least since I demonstrated to you that the Bezant study was not the unassailable bastion of authority that you'd held it out to be). With your preference for "beliefs", perhaps you
would be more comfortable elsewhere, maybe in a "religion" forum.
Oh, Bman, if I've misinterpreted, or otherwise misstated your position(s), please correct me.[/QUOTE]
Well, no, you really haven't misstated anything... appreciated. But let's give Bazant his proper credit, if we assume :
- that the entirety of the structural supports had been destroyed by the plane and the fire (impossible, but let's assume)
- next if we assume that the collision had "crush-down and crush-up" phases that occurred instantaneously without causing any deceleration (or even simply reduction in acceleration due to gravity) of the collapse process
- That the collision of the top portion onto the lower structure of the floor below the collapse wave was hit in such a way to cause every column to ALSO buckle simultaneously (without any reduction in acceleration as well)
- FINALLY, AND we assume that 100% of the mass of the top block was held within the confines of the structure (ie no mass fell over the side of the building during collapse)
THEN, Bazant wrote a great scientific analysis on 9-13-2001. However, those of us in the real world KNOW that most of these assumptions are impossible or unrealistic, THEREFORE there is validity to the claim that Bazant had somehow sold out his reputation for the cause of defending the official version.
(I say it like that because it's foolish of me to call someone with the technical expertise of Bazant stupid... he HAS TO KNOW that he was writing up BS.)
