Luxury skyscraper hotel completely engulfed by fire in Grozny, Chechnya (VIDEO, PHOTOS)

[William Seger]

175. "How the fuck do you know that" ?

Well, gee, I guess I just assumed that because you completely neglected those lateral forces in your imaginary physics of what you thought "ought" to have happened. Since that indicated to me that your understanding of what we should expect was seriously flawed, I pointed out that force to you and explained why it mattered. But apparently you still didn't understand why it was important and demanded, "please tell us how a column made out of 4 inch thick steel can't resist the lateral force?" But then, when I pointed you to a quantitative analysis by a structural mechanics expert -- one of the most cited experts in the world, in fact -- which does exactly that, you pull the "just because he is a professor" bit, instead of acknowledging the error in your imaginary physics.

But oh yeah, you're right about blindly believing professors. Some of them believe some really dumb things. For example, just because Steven Jones was a BYU professor with a PhD in physics doesn't mean that he was right about expecting the towers to topple over like a tree, just like you, and for exactly the same reason as you: He is completely clueless about structural mechanics. (His PhD also doesn't mean that he was right that the rustproofing paint chips in the WTC dust were "super-nanothermite," either, when he ventured into another technical area that he was manifest unqualified for.)

> If I show you a half dozen of people as qualified or more qualified that say something different will you accept that as proof?...can I then laugh at you because you don't agree with them?

But you seem to be unaware that there's a pretty well established way of settling any genuine technical issues: peer-reviewed technical journals, where Bazant frequently publishes. You are completely delusional if you believe there are "a half dozen of people as qualified or more qualified that say something different" in that venue, or in fact that have a snowball's chance in hell of ever successfully challenging Bazant or publishing their own papers in that venue.

> The evidence is not in your favor.

Oh, yes it is.