OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[ozeco41]

I find this "discussion" hysterical. It appears to me that Tom has produced a pretty well documented and accurate depiction of the collapse mechanism(s)... he's called it ROOSD. It hardly matters what it's actually called... but I think giving it the acronym is perfectly reasonable... But it also seems that all the big guys with alphabets attached to the name seemed to NOT identify the mechanism and.... are too proud (hubris???) to admit it. And who the eff cares that Mr B could run some number proving X mass could destroy the tower.... it's not what happened so it's a waste of time essentially... it sheds no light on the actual mechanisms.

Of course what seems to drive these guys mad is that they perceive Tom to be a truther or a liar about something and it certainly seems that on the matter of the collapse he seems to be the one telling the "truth" here not the other fellas in the JREF club.

I don't dispute that there are some very intelligent people... who participated in the discussion... they just happened to have been wrong. Frankly as ROOSD has nothing to do with initiation.... and it only the collapse process... why does the initiation matter? Maybe Tom was a "truther" and maybe he still believes that CD kicked off ROOSD... THAT is another matter and has nothing to do with the veracity of ROOSD. And as a side note I don't see any truthers jumping on the ROOSD bandwagon either.... not a one.

I'd also like to know what Tom lied about? Maybe he changed his opinion? or evolved his understanding? I know my thinking on this matter has evolved... but it has never really accepted the illogical and sloppy (bad) thinking that truthers seem to display. I don't consider myself to be a liar... perhaps a bit dumb and dense at times.

But in the end these battles of personalities just seem childish to me... egos seem to driving this not rational thinking.

Well said Sander. The illogic and "truthers are always wrong" ethos of this Forum sad to see in action.

You will recall my code expression over many years "Blue Sky Syndrome"

Still.... This is the JREF we seem to love.....

...and Major_Tom is not my biggest fan BUT....he got two points right AND I don't like his self aggrandising arrogance or his offensive snide personal comments style...

If anyone wants to drop the personal attacks and discuss the technical topic I'm still slightly interested...but it was all resolved several years back...

 

[JSanderO]

"What does study of the collapse do, since all engineers I have found know who it would collapse after a simple study of the structure, as Robertson said himself - he did the structure. On 911 all that Major Tom took 10 years to figure out was known by Robertson.

Why can't the book author debunk 911 truth. At least you guys should join the folding at JREF, and put us ahead - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154"

Perhaps the concept of "debunking" is for others and is a reverse burden actually... Far better to simply establish what happen then waste time (aside from the "fun" of it) of undermining dumb arguments.

Some people have not figured it out yet after 14 yrs and how do you know how much time Tom took and why would it matter? I personally didn't really try to make sense of it on my own until late 2009 early 2010... and it didn't take me long to come up with something I called vertical avalanche which I sent to AE911T comment only to receive nothing. And who cares? I then discovered the 911FF where there were sensible discussions on the technical issues... and where I ran into Tom's and Ozzie's thinking. I spent some time on Deep Politics trying to bring some rational discussion on the topic but was kicked out after TSz joined and they had a truther who reinforced their conspiracy paranoia. I realized that no matter how intelligent people are... they are so deeply invested in the "beliefs"... politics or religion.... they they cannot be rational on some subjects... 9/11 being the prime example. And so not much will change... especially is people are making money from the "debate" (points to Gage, Griffin and all the other "motivational" speakers on the truther roster.)

If Roberston knew the process he should have jumped on PBS and Nat Geo for their inaccurate description of the collapse.

 

[JSanderO]

"What does study of the collapse do, since all engineers I have found know who it would collapse after a simple study of the structure, as Robertson said himself - he did the structure. On 911 all that Major Tom took 10 years to figure out was known by Robertson.

Why can't the book author debunk 911 truth. At least you guys should join the folding at JREF, and put us ahead - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154"

Perhaps the concept of "debunking" is for others and is a reverse burden actually... Far better to simply establish what happen than waste time (aside from the "fun" of it) of undermining dumb arguments.

Some people have not figured it out yet after 14 yrs and how do you know how much time Tom took and why would it matter? I personally didn't really try to make sense of it on my own until late 2009 early 2010... and it didn't take me long to come up with something I called vertical avalanche which I sent to AE911T comment only to receive nothing. And who cares? I then discovered the 911FF where there were sensible discussions on the technical issues... and where I ran into Tom's and Ozzie's thinking. I spent some time on Deep Politics trying to bring some rational discussion on the topic but was kicked out after TSz joined and they had a truther who reinforced their conspiracy paranoia.

I realized that no matter how intelligent people are... they are so deeply invested in the "beliefs"... politics or religion (9/11).... they they cannot debate rationally on some subjects... 9/11 being the prime example. And so not much will change... especially if people are making money from the "debate" (points to Gage, Griffin and all the other "motivational" speakers on the truther roster.)

If Roberston knew the "ROOSD" process he should have jumped on PBS and Nat Geo for their inaccurate description of the collapse. My sense is that he is well aware that the design played a part in both how long it stood post impact and how quickly it fell once the threshold mass was freed from "the building's structure". Many "professionals" lauded the former and most ignored the latter... with the exception it seems of Thornton.

 

[JSanderO]

delete... duplicate post

 

[jaydeehess]

[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif[/qimg][qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif[/qimg]

Well said Sander. The illogic and "truthers are always wrong" ethos of this Forum sad to see in action.

Indeed but I don't even care that much about that. We get similar treatment on truther sites. OK, so what?
M_T chose to post here and put forth his paper. Yes, he's been taken to task for his truther ideas BUT has garnered support from several debunkers for his"mapping" the sequence of collapse.
In addition many others agree with him that Bazant is not a model of what really happened.

...and Major_Tom is not my biggest fan BUT....he got two points right AND I don't like his self aggrandising arrogance or his offensive snide personal comments style..If anyone wants to drop the personal attacks and discuss the technical topic I'm still slightly interested...but it was all resolved several years back....

Therein lies my frustration. He stated that the ROOSD model could be used to discuss the possibility of CD. Yet it seems he is more interested in, or perhaps fixated on, having all others here first accept his acronym for the collapse progression ( a condition that was identified by both FEMA and NIST as the driver of collapse progression), and to accept and laud his condemnation of anyone who has, or seems to have, refered to Bazant as being a model of what really happened.

Several times now I have made this point to M_T and yet when he does quote a post of mine he comes back with exactly what I have suggested he move on from, and ignores what I suggest he actually do.

 

[Newtons Bit]

JSanderO: Do you agree with Major_Tom's statement:

It is now 2014 and there is no written evidence that R Mackey, Newton's Bit, Dave Rogers, TFK, Beachnut, David Benson, or Bazant himself can perceive a contradiction between the latter Bazant papers and the OOS propagation model.

 

[JSanderO]

JSanderO: Do you agree with Major_Tom's statement:

Frankly I don't pay much attention to what some of the posters you mentioned have said and I've only been on this site for maybe a year????

I really don't care and I have no interested in gotcha BS whether it comes from. Tom seems to be spending a fair amount of energy to prove that some people said dumb things... They react by trying to pin him as a sneaky truther...

I could care less. I think the ROOSD whenever it was explained is the best fit explanation... and the one most people can understand... the Bazant deal seems not only not describing what happened... regardless of whether his math is correct or not... but is not something which most people could understand. And so I think the ROOSD model goes a long way toward demystifying the disbelief and misunderstanding about the collapse phase. I am not interested in personality conflicts... and they come off sounding like a bunch of adolescents arguing...

 

[jaydeehess]

JSanderO: Do you agree with Major_Tom's statement:

His note on what others may or may not believe about any aspect of Bazant's work is irrelevant if that same person does acknowledge that collapse progression was led by interior floor collapses which is what M_T also describes.

It is time for him to move on, if he has something to move on to. In others , many people would now be doubting he has anything further to say and that is why he chooses to simply spin his wheels crying about perceptions.

 

[rwguinn]

So we have a fellow who has bee here a year who hasn't followed the technical discussions occurring over 13 years (and isn't interested in them) telling those of us who have been involved since the beginning that we are all wrong and MT is right.
Sigh...

 

[DGM]

It is time for him to move on, if he has something to move on to. In others , many people would now be doubting he has anything further to say and that is why he chooses to simply spin his wheels crying about perceptions.

It been this time for a while now.

I've attempted (a few times) to make any kind of reason out of this "book". You said you read it, is there a point in there (outside of him stroking is own ego)? It certainly isn't a technical one.

 

[carlitos]

I could care less

How much less?

 

[DGM]

How much less?

<That's one of my pet peeves also, right up there with "tow the line">

 

[jaydeehess]

It been this time for a while now.

I've attempted (a few times) to make any kind of reason out of this "book". You said you read it, is there a point in there (outside of him stroking is own ego)? It certainly isn't a technical one.

Actually I said I read the parts where he did a technical study, he calls it mapping, of the movements of the building and concluded internal collapse led external collapse in what he termed Runaway Open Office Space Destruction or ROOSD. The psycho babble about motives and misunderstandings I quickly determined I had zero interest in.

However, its becoming apparent that those are the parts of the paper he is most interested in over technical discussion.

His work simply details what both FEMA and NIST had already concluded about the progression through global collapse.

He has also stated that once these mappings are seen as accurate, then a discussion of the probability of CD could take place.

I pointed out several times now that there are many people who accept that floor collapses led the global collapses and that his determination of what moved first is as accurate as can be expected. Inexplicably, he continues to rail against st his detractors , even to me despite my expressed complete lack of desire to do so, instead of moving on.

I could not care less what tfk has to say about M.Tom or who believes that Bazant was attempting to describe what actually happened.

 

[DGM]

Actually I said I read the parts where he did a technical study, he calls it mapping, of the movements of the building and concluded internal collapse led external collapse in what he termed Runaway Open Office Space Destruction or ROOSD. The psycho babble about motives and misunderstandings I quickly determined I had zero interest in.

I wonder if anyone has been able to read through the whole thing, I've tried a few times. I've determined that it's un-readable in its entirety.

However, its becoming apparent that those are the parts of the paper he is most interested in over technical discussion.

Interesting because he doesn't actually make any clear point in that regard. I have no problems with his physical observations.

He has also stated that once these mappings are seen as accurate, then a discussion of the probability of CD could take place.

A pointless step in my opinion. Why would he need agreement? Does he think his knowledge is so superior that we need to agree in order to keep up?

I pointed out several times now that there are many people who accept that floor collapses led the global collapses and that his determination of what moved first is as accurate as can be expected. Inexplicably, he continues to rail against st his detractors , even to me despite my expressed complete lack of desire to do so, instead of moving on.

Leading me to wonder about what I just asked.

I could not care less what tfk has to say about M.Tom or who believes that Bazant was attempting to describe what actually happened.

.

I agree.

 

[JSanderO]

So we have a fellow who has bee here a year who hasn't followed the technical discussions occurring over 13 years (and isn't interested in them) telling those of us who have been involved since the beginning that we are all wrong and MT is right.
Sigh...

I was asleep under a rock for the past 100 years... Who said you boys are all wrong and Tom is always right? I believe I wrote that the ROOSD was the best fit explanation I was aware of.

What was yours mr guinn? And how did you arrive at it?

 

[DGM]

I was asleep under a rock for the past 100 years... Who said you boys are all wrong and Tom is always right? I believe I wrote that the ROOSD was the best fit explanation I was aware of.

What was yours mr guinn? And how did you arrive at it?

Why does this seem to bother you that this is all in agreement from what was conceived from the beginning?

You seem annoyed at any suggestion that most engineers understood what happened after the initiation fairly well. (set aside every "truther"/debunker distraction since)

What's up?

 

[jaydeehess]

I wonder if anyone has been able to read through the whole thing, I've tried a few times. I've determined that it's un-readable in its entirety.

Maybe ozeco has.

Interesting because he doesn't actually make any clear point in that regard. I have no problems with his physical observations.

Many don't. Observation is information and that's as far as that goes.

A pointless step in my opinion. Why would he need agreement? Does he think his knowledge is so superior that we need to agree in order to keep up?

Hard to say.

Leading me to wonder about what I just asked.

.

I agree.

Makes two of us. Did I include you in my list of who "gets it"?
ETA yes, I did.

 

[jaydeehess]

I was asleep under a rock for the past 100 years... Who said you boys are all wrong and Tom is always right? I believe I wrote that the ROOSD was the best fit explanation I was aware of.

What was yours mr guinn? And how did you arrive at it?

I think rwg was referring to the idea that MT himself believes he's right and everyone else isn't. That MT isn't seemingly interested in any prior discussion or technical writings that determined that what he terms ROOSD was what happened.

 

[DGM]

Makes two of us. Did I include you in my list of who "gets it"?
ETA yes, I did.

As far as what happened after the building started to move. I had a good grasp on that in 2001. I am however guilty of arguing Bazant with "truthers" where there was never a clear line where reality and theory was in the arguments (yes, I fell down the poison well).

I should have given that up when I started "talking" to Tony Sz about his first "paper".

 

[tsig]

We say that the Bazant papers aren't supposed to be an accurate model of the collapses. Why? Because the papers themselves estabalish that they are not setting out to accurately model the collapse. Major_Tom hears, "we believe there is no different between the actual collapse and the Bazant papers".

They are merely an engineering exercise called a "best case analysis' which proved that once the building started to collapse there was no stopping it. Failing to understand this has caused many Truthers to hare off after straw rabbits.