DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
OOS Collapse Propagation Model
- Thread starter Major_Tom
- Start date
- Status
Your section three, BS, a worthless attack on engineering, engineering you fail to comprehend.
How does your OOSCPM work to debunk your delusional "gravity collapse is an illusion?
Last edited:
Very few people are that masochistic.
That seems like a stupid remark... I am losing interest in this subject because of comments such as this one.
I am not going to read back into the history of the discussions about the meaning of Mr B's papers. Apparently Tom discussed them and found them not applicable to the collapse events... whether he was correct or not. is hardly the issue when it comes to the fact that he DID discuss the papers. I suspect Mr B's papers have little applicability to the actual collapses....
So why are they even part of the discussion as to what happened... To remark that planes caused damaged and then fires and the the building had a global collapse is not an explanation of any specificity. At least the ROOSD one seems to reflect the real world... with supporting "evidence" from the record for the collapse phase.
So why does it matter WHO did this "work" and what his views on CD is or if he's changed them? It's all gotcha BS and childish bickering... and hardly instructive about the mechanisms of the collapse... especially the period from the plane impact to the first observable building movements. I don't expect to learn anything about this on this forum.
Well done mates...
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Have you read his whole book?
Quite possibly, but the CT part doesn't revolve around collapse progress, it revolves around collapse initiation. Bazant and others were dead right - once the building starts falling there's no way it'll stop and B's physics is little more than an interesting sideline.
Read the first few pages (well, as many as you like really) of this long thread, and you'll see that M_T avoids explaining collapse initiation like the plague. He just wants followers of the magnificence of his analysis of collapse progress. He has spotted a very small pond where he can be the big fish. But it really is a very small pond.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Try it sometime. Then you'll understand my remark. (the affect is even greater if you start at the beginning and don't skip around).
If you get all the way through let us know, I'm reasonable sure it will be a first.
Try it sometime. Then you'll understand my remark. (the affect is even greater if you start at the beginning and don't skip around).
If you get all the way through let us know, I'm reasonable sure it will be a first.
If you are referring to this web page
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/
I have read a lot of the articles and following a lot of the links. i think the term "book" is stupid. It looks to me like a resource... a sort of 911 wiki... which includes some of Tom's analysis and critic of other work on the topic of the WTC destruction. I read a fair amount of criticism of the truther "work" and I find the page a excellent resource about the WTC destruction. My take away is that Tom is not a truther. He appears to be bashing all dopey work on the topic. And in that I would tend to agree.
I followed his link to mmmlink or whomever that is... who does vids about the WTC... which to me was pretty laughable in his conception of the collapse of the towers.
I think this page is a valuable resource to anyone interested on all the discussion, papers, vids about the WTC destruction. While it may not be something you can read like a book... and I don't think he concludes with a step by step explanation of the whole event from start to finish.. I see no other site which has compiled as much information on a single web page.
Do you?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I never said the resources compiled there were all bad.
It's his editorial that makes it un-readable.
Do you agree with him in that as soon as everyone accepts OOS then we can start to discuss CD? You do know this is the position he's held for years?
I don't know what Tom's position is about "initiation" which I think you are equating with CD...
I believe he does not think (I don't care actually what HE thinks) that there were no devices in what he calls the ROOSD phase... ie once the building starting to visibly to the naked eye collapse. I would agree with this... I see no evidence to think that there were devices needed once the collapse was in progress.
Tom doesn't control what is discussed re the initiation... or what led to the collapse. My sense is we don't have any observations of what was happening inside the towers up there to tell us much. It's hard to believe that they went from stable / static to the collapse phase in an instant. I suspect things WERE "coming apart" inside... over time but did not telegraph to movements observable from outside. Essentially there was some process of whittling away at the structure until it reached the point where it did not have capacity to remain stable and that was the point (of no return) when the collapse began which COULD be observed and Tom calls ROOSD.
What that whittling away was... is the discussion I would like to see take place. I imagine it is conceivable that devices could do what heat likely did... but I think that hardly makes sense for a number of reasons. I wonder if there is any way to actually prove what the whittling away at capacity actually was... but heat from fires seems to be a very very safe bet. Having said that.... I would like to see HOW that worked... What did the heat work on? How did it make the parts fail? etc etc and so forth.
I suggested a model which I called sink hole top drop (SHTD).... which was a sort of progressive process suggesting how the frame capacity might have been destroyed by heat from expansion of the bracing. It may be a completely hair brained idea.... But I have not read any another mechanism(s) with any level of specificity... other than mechanical damage and heat... Certainly ROOSD has the sort of specificity that the other "theoretical models" lacked for the collapse phase.
This is not Tom's discussion... and who needs his blessing or whatever. Why don't you DGM... proposed a model which shows what happened to lead to the progressive collapse???
ozeco41
Philosopher
It is irrelevant and "Off Topic".
The key thing for this thread and "On-Topic" is that M_T's OOS model is IMNSHO correct and identifies the two main mechanisms of the "Three Mechanisms" of collapse progression for the twins.
Note that all the posts subsequent to Tom's (other than some of yours Sander) are "Off Topic" - discussions of his style, his "Book", derails into "initiation", his one time support of CD. All of them irrelevant to whether or not he is right with the main points of the OP Topic.
And IMO he just happens to be right on the three main on-topic issues. (1) He understands the mechanics of progression, (2) Bazant got some things wrong; AND (3) People are still confused by the limits of Bazant's validity when applied to WTC 9/11.
Last edited:
What specifically are you talking about? His model is watching the videos - we all have the video if we want. Read his book, the entire thing, and list the specifics you talk about we can't figure out ourselves.
You read the whole book right. What sort of specificity are you talking about.
Are you satisfied yet? Was impact and fires not fought enough.
Did OOS Collapse Propagation no Math Visual Interpretation Model help satisfy you.
Ironically MT complains about Bazant, " He argues that even though we cannot see what happens within the clouds of dust", yet MT OOS CPM is based on seeing. Ironic or something, as in section 3 MT exposes his contempt for engineering, math and Bazant; all which he can't grasp.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Me too. AFAIK it has never been discussed. We usually see the errors of thinking - which are easy to point out BUT hard for those committing them to grasp - they are easier for persons who have strong skill at visualising three dimensional dynamics and that is a rare animal. (IIRC Less than 20% are "visuals" and that is before we complicate it with "3D" and dynamic.)
Let's see if someone starts or resurrects a thread.
[/End Derail] (If everyone else can do it why shouldn't I
)M_T is right on the three key points of this topic. I say so.
Last edited:
Beachy,
I am going to put it this way.. whether or not the papers with math are right or wrong about what actually happened there that day... the ROOSD "model" makes perfect sense to virtually all people. You don't need an engineering or math degree to understand ("see") what happened and what seemed to be mysterious, inexplicable and unpredictable.'
Someone else can do the FEA of this (and who cares?) Someone else can string out 1,000 equations about it (and who cares?)... People wanted to understand what happened... how they fell... and ROOSD is a damn good and easy to comprehend explanation and happens to be correct.
You guys didn't articulate it and so you are acting rather bizarre confronting this "fact". Time to move on....
In three words.... What Ozzie said.
Why are 911 truth, x911 truth people anti-math, anti-engineering.
How do you know, you never read the whole book. OR so you need to read the book to get a full oos experience, or ...
Why can't you specifically list the stuff which you specifically said oss has, "Certainly ROOSD has the sort of specificity that the other "theoretical models" lacked for the collapse phase.", yet Robertson clearly understood how the WTC would collapse, and he knew 1970s and/or before.
I got the videos of the collapse, so I know exactly how the collapse took place, which is the same as oos. Bingo.
Read the book, and I bet you can't summarize the conclusion. Or can you, or what.
Did oos satisfy your, "I am not satisfied with the explanation given. The explanation raises more questions than it answers.", or not? Wait, it does not cover initiation, or does it.
Do you think oos stopped the silly claim of MT, "the gravity collapse is an illusion", or what. He can't seem to get to it; is suspect he is not reading or has a problem reading and understanding what is being asked or something.
The first page of the thread answered all, it is MT who has the illusions, and "just plain" stuff.
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
Engineering requires several stages:
1) Define the problem; <<< You cannot use math or FEA there!
2) Solve the problem; <<< That is where the math and FEA's fit.
3) Build the ruddy thing or whatever is needed
4) etc
Every time an engineer asks me for "Math(s)" or "FEA" I check to see if he is missing the point. Because he usually is. T Sz is expert at missing the point. So are several other engineers who post here. I've even done it myself on the odd occasion but not recently in this forum.
You do not, cannot apply math or FEA until you know what you are applying it to AND you only apply math or FEA when they are needed.
This topic is not about math. It cannot be solved with math or FEA. Neither math or FEA can add anything to THIS TOPIC.
The topic is describing a mechanism.
Spot on Sander.
Recall "blue sky"?
Excuse me taking liberties Sander but FTFY
Last edited:
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,214
The problem here is that whatever problem ROOSD/OOS seems to be addressing is not the same problem that any of the Bazant papers are addressing.
Last edited:
But ROOSD / OSS addresses rather well what ACTUALLY happened. And that is what is of interest. B's papers all refer to the WTC collapses and are hardly more than inapplicable techno babble.
Beachy is a clever (and arrogant) guy who because of his science/engineering background knew exactly what happened the minute he saw the collapses on TV. I don't recall nor would it matter actually if he made some sort of "presentation" of his understanding to help others who didn't see it instantly as he did. Others seemed to have had to study the visuals and the structure a bit to arrive at what is referred to as ROOSD / OSS explanation. It seems to me that without knowing a bit about the structural system of the towers one could not come up with ROOSD... and this makes it a bit more inaccessible to Joe Average. And I see the "problem" as getting the Joe and Jane Averages of the world to understand something which mystified them. Mr. B didn't do it... and non of the truther stuff does either as it expects people to believe nonsense which there is no evidence of... and they make stuff up to get around that.
Ozzie's last post about the way an engineer solves a problem is spot on.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Correct.
The problem here is that ROOSD/OOS is describing the real event and the real event is not the same abstract problem that any of the Bazant papers are addressing.
And that is the central point over which many members are confused. The problems being that they don't think "they" are confused and they have Major_Tom "branded" as a truther AND - whether they admit it or not - they do not believe that a "branded truther" - someone whom the JREF claque do not like - can get something right. AND Major_Tom is right on those central facts. In fact his technical research work is far superior to anything most of our "debunker side" members have attempted AND beyond the range of their clear thinking.
I've been saying that for years - whilst bluntly stating that I don't agree with his style or a lot of his non-technical and some of his technical logic.
Notice that no one is prepared to say he is wrong on the technical issues. They claim that they do not see "what the fuss is about". They try to evade by switching topics to other issues.
And the history of this and two other threads is there for all to read.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Point is M_T, as I have pointed out several times, there are multiple posters on this forum who agree with the ROOSD propagation of collapse. There are multiple posters therefore who do not see Bazant as representing what-really-happened. There are only two Bazantian aspects that are relevant; the first, his calculations of having the upper mass impact the floor space of the towers(his mass assumptions perhaps being off is another topic) and seeing a 30+ times greater force than those floors could withstand; and the limit case of have that upper mass fully taken by lower section columns which is the "best case" for collapse arrest and which also demonstrates that even in this, collapse could not arrest.
THAT is as relevant as Bazant is and continued discussion on the meaning of Bazant is just navel gazing.
I listed people who agree with ROOSD (the concept), your only reply was to quibble about one person I included, and one who I did not(who you would not include in such a list either), and then go back to Bazant-is-wrong-here's-why post after post.
So the question then remains, and has been asked several times in various forms, why are you beating that dead horse named Bazant?
It seems, and this is another question, inferrred in the posts of mine that you quoted, is this repeated line of Bazantian comprehension simply part of a campaign by you to illustrate that your understanding is the ultimate while all other's pale in comparison?
Last edited:
- Status