OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[JSanderO]

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?

I can't answer for Tom.... but I suspect that at least one of his points is that B has been put on a pedestal and whether his work is correct or not... it is not related to the real world event... something that apparently many "here" seem to have a hard time to admit... AND the fact that B was considered the go-to guy who "explained" the collapses in "the early years". It appears he did not and he's been silent as have others in stating this.

Then you get all the personality thing going because Tom was supposedly a truther at one point and so anything he said, says or has done is tainted. It's like kill the messenger... who cares about the message???

Tom appears to be having a ball observing how insane the discussion is and this may be related to the parts of his Pulitzer prize winning book where he discusses scientific inquiry and so on. And as the WTC was a sort of scientific investigation... HOW those are approached is also of interest (to some). Science DOES deal with investigation of the physical world and events in it... the shuttle disaster was a pretty interesting one as a study in how investigations are undertaken... and 9/11 is similar on steroids. Of course THIS aspect is of no interest to JREFers... and certainly not to truthers. I do find the psychological aspects and "group think" behavior rather interesting. YMMV

 

[carlitos]

I do find the psychological aspects and "group think" behavior rather interesting. YMMV

Those have been the only interesting things in this forum for a long, long time.

 

[rwguinn]

The only thing that OOS collapsed does for us is leave no mouse turd unturned" in the nitpicking category. One the energy levels that ensure complete and unstoppable collapse are established, it actually makes no difference whether the floors fail due to monolithic impact or a fine grained rubble avalanche.
If our have a floor built to code, one overload it by a factor of 20 to 30, it matters not if that over load comes from a chunk of concrete or a dump truck load of sand.

 

[jaydeehess]

I can't answer for Tom.... but I suspect that at least one of his points is that B has been put on a pedestal and whether his work is correct or not... it is not related to the real world event... something that apparently many "here" seem to have a hard time to admit... AND the fact that B was considered the go-to guy who "explained" the collapses in "the early years". It appears he did not and he's been silent as have others in stating this.

I listed those who agree that ROOSD, or your phrase "vertical avalanche" drove global collapse of the towers. As I said, two Bazant meme's are relevant as studies in simplified or limiting cases. Agreement with ROOSD negates any consideration that crush-up, crush-down is important as all it does is add to the debris driving ROOSD if C-U occurs at the same or greater rate as C-D, and if C-U occurs at a lesser rate as Bazant seems to assume, then he appears to be wrong. So where's the beef if the posters here generally agree that ROOSD drove collapse rather than a crushing top block? If he could get everyone to absolutey accept and agree on absolutely everything he says then he should run for office because there hasn't been such a person in history yet.

Then you get all the personality thing going because Tom was supposedly a truther at one point and so anything he said, says or has done is tainted. It's like kill the messenger... who cares about the message???

One of his messages was that ROOSD, or at least his mappings of initial movements, could be used to say something about whether or not there was CD involved. He seems bent on not continuing that thought. Has he rejected the idea? He has three choices on this matter; start that conversation; don't start it and tell us why not; or don't start it and stay silent about why. So far seems that the last one is his plan.

Tom appears to be having a ball observing how insane the discussion is and this may be related to the parts of his Pulitzer prize winning book where he discusses scientific inquiry and so on. And as the WTC was a sort of scientific investigation... HOW those are approached is also of interest (to some). Science DOES deal with investigation of the physical world and events in it... the shuttle disaster was a pretty interesting one as a study in how investigations are undertaken... and 9/11 is similar on steroids. Of course THIS aspect is of no interest to JREFers... and certainly not to truthers. I do find the psychological aspects and "group think" behavior rather interesting. YMMV

In university as a physics major I was required to take one Arts course ( supposedly to ensure we knew how to read and write???) Most chose psych 101, a 'bird' course. Because that topic just leaves me cold I chose instead "Modern History". I could not care less about the minutia of why people believe what they belive on a psychological level, and it has no relevance imho, to the physical mechanisms that cause buildings to collapse. Uri Geller might disagree.

 

[JSanderO]

One of his messages was that ROOSD, or at least his mappings of initial movements, could be used to say something about whether or not there was CD involved. He seems bent on not continuing that thought. Has he rejected the idea? He has three choices on this matter; start that conversation; don't start it and tell us why not; or don't start it and stay silent about why. So far seems that the last one is his plan.

I am not aware of "that" message. But clearly there was an "undoing" of the integrity of enough of the structure up top... so the ROOSD mass could do its thing.

I don't see how the ROOSD process would tell us much about how the ROOSD mass was "freed" from the structural matrix. I think it's conceivable that bombs could do it... but I see no evidence of this and no way to connect this to ROOSD.

I've always said as I got more into this thing... the real prize was to nail the initiation... the collapse seems to be able to proceed "naturally". And by nail I mean the process/mechanisms that led up to the moment / point of no return where the threshold mass was free (to ROOSD) and all hell broke loose.

And I repeat for the umpteenth time... It doesn't matter what Tom thinks or DGM or anyone... it matters what the mechanism(s) turn out to be...

Let the games begin!

 

[beachnut]

... I do find the psychological aspects and "group think" behavior rather interesting. YMMV

Is group think what fooled people who joined ae911t, or a general lack of knowledge, opinions based on ignorance.

And what about the air defenses? No one got spanked for having a trillion dollar defense apparatus which couldn't get a plane close enough to do anything.

Is this group think? Opinions based on a lack of knowledge. Does "groupthink" fuel 911 truth, or does 911 truth fuel "groupthink".

OOS is BS born out of some delusion "the gravity collapse was an illusion".

ROBERTSON: But the collapse mechanism of the Trade Center is as we had anticipated it would be when we first designed it. It was not – please don't misunderstand me – it was not designed to collapse. But any prudent engineer looking at the future has to think about, what are the mechanisms that cause collapse, and how to go about strengthening the building so as to minimize that circumstance. So sure, we spent time looking at that kind of event, and that which was observable from the photographs and so forth is reasonably consistent with that which we thought would be the case.

Major Tom thinks the gravity collapse was an illusion, or has he retracted that? You thought there was something wrong with the collapse, when you could have asked Robertson to clear up your problems.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html#Orling
Would you trust Robertson? People trusted Gage, a fraud, skipped the source, and went for the woo due to ...

Why study the collapse? The way the WTC fails was already a known factor, any engineer (lay people too, in fact they may do it better) who studies the design, the system can explain it.

The first page of the thread was enough, now we have 10 seconds back on the clock... and talking about insane discussion, have you read the book

 

[ozeco41]

In university as a physics major I was required to take one Arts course ( supposedly to ensure we knew how to read and write???) Most chose psych 101, a 'bird' course. Because that topic just leaves me cold I chose instead "Modern History"....

For me doing an engineering course circa 1959-60 there were two half units. One in psych the other in philosophy. The objective was similar to yours -stated more pragmatically. It was to turn us philistine engineers into something resembling humans. The units were specially structured not mainstream "101's" from those schools. On the normal scales - 101>202>305 etc - I got the impression that "Psychology for Engineers" was about 011

I could not care less about the minutia of why people believe what they believe on a psychological level, and it has no relevance imho, to the physical mechanisms that cause buildings to collapse. Uri Geller might disagree.

Whilst I agree that the physical mechanisms are different and can be separated - should be separated from the discussion - reality is that the discussion here in this thread is mostly "shoot the messenger".

Why shoot this messenger when we have other threads - Millette on dust and Microspheres - where there is no messenger shooting? Where else do we see a messenger who is right being shot? By members who have to miss the point in order to shoot?

When this messenger is right on two central issues of explaining WTC collapse which is a central technical issue for 9/11. When "dust" and "microspheres" are several degrees more remote?

Why all the constructive missing the point and denialism?

All the "apples and oranges are both fruit. we don't need to know how they are different".

How far would I get if I tried that trick on the Shuttle?
"The shuttle blew up after a jet of fire caused a tank to explode....we don't need to know the details"

Yet we so often see this argument:
"Aircraft impact damage and unfought fires caused the collapse of the Twin towers. We don't need to discuss the details."

And why is that last one ONLY called on when it is a "JREF Mob Declared Truther"?

 

[carlitos]

I'm not seeing how this is a "central technical issue for 9/11," and I think that your space shuttle analogy fails. I was lucky enough to do the simulation of the Challenger shuttle case in grad school, where they disguised the Morton Thiokol engineers as a race car crew. It was a great learning experience, but once the o-ring fails, that's all she wrote. If tile 300 or tile 5383 flew away first, who in the world cares?

 

[jaydeehess]

JSO, everything you said!
I too do not envision how ROOSD or mapping of the visible collapse could tell us anything about what caused tab A to no longer be inserted into slot A. I wish I had the drive to find MTs reference to it helping in a discussion of possible CD.


Ozeco, there seems to be room on this subforum for a discussion of collapse mechanics which by my mind is more directly applicable to the topic of 9/11 than is the minutia of dust constituents and the ridiculous starting point of there being tons of therm?te in the structures.

Gang-up is practised on many a forum as you know well. Afaiac its background noise that I admit I get caught up in the tune of at times. However as far as "dont't like" goes, MT offers more than just a truther label to get that.
In 1975 at Carelton U. science majors took regular Arts 101 courses. Unfairly, an Arts major who had a whim to choose a science course could take a general science, as you put it, 011 course. Science majors could also take it but in their case it would be a zero credit. Artsies got full credit since it alluded to there being math involved in science even if the course did not include much if any.

 

[tsig]

Very few people are that masochistic.

If you skim the repetitious parts, the gratuitous insults and the completely irrelevant asides it doesn't take that long to read.

 

[ozeco41]

I'm not seeing how this is a "central technical issue for 9/11,"

That is intriguing. The Shuttle blew up. It blew up because a tank exploded from fire the cause was a failed O ring. So in that case you agree knowing the real cause was important for the Shuttle.

For the WTC Towers collapses we have two stages - initiation and progression. If you are saying "initiation" was the "O ring" I agree. That was the NIST position (once it started) "global collapse was inevitable". From that perspective your statement:

... and I think that your space shuttle analogy fails.

Is correct for you. Sorry for that - analogies are always vulnerable in the presence of experts.

BUT we have been discussing WTC Twin Towers progressions not initiation.

My intended point with the Shuttle was to show that "O ring" detail is needed not simply "fire". Specific necessary detail not generic overview. For the progression stage.

And the "O Ring" real cause for the progression stage of WTC Twins collapse was what M_T calls "OOS", what I call the first of the "Three Mechanisms". It was not the academic simplified one-dimensional model of Bazant's papers.

Material falling down the office space tube was the "O ring" analogy for that stage of progression. It was definitely NOT crushing of a one-dimensional model with columns being buckled.

Then AFAIK there is no conspiracy theory over the shuttle which has academics writing simplified papers with a goal of generic analysis of space vehicle failure AND who have published papers which deny or ignore the O Ring failure.

Let me know if I'm wrong.

 

[ozeco41]

...Ozeco, there seems to be room on this subforum for a discussion of collapse mechanics which by my mind is more directly applicable to the topic of 9/11 than is the minutia of dust constituents and the ridiculous starting point of there being tons of therm?te in the structures...

You and I on the same sheet of music. Hence my position that understanding the collapse mechanisms is central to technical discussion - for the obvious reason that the buildings did fall and both why they fell and how they fell have long been the hot topics. WHILST dust and microspheres are about something several degrees more remote. Of zero direct relevance to WTC 9/11. They are about evidence for something which didn't happen and which prove nothing either way about WTC 9/11 until there is an hypothesis in favour of MHI. (AKA "CD") And we are only seeing them discussed because debunkers accept reversed burden of disproof - plus scientific curiosity.

Gang-up is practised on many a forum as you know well. Afaiac its background noise that I admit I get caught up in the tune of at times.

Agreed and "don't we all". You know my "two posts ROE" and my "Don't feed trolls"

However as far as "dont't like" goes, MT offers more than just a truther label to get that.

I've said so many times but I don't join in the hate fest. Sure I've probably spent more time here and on 911Forum trying to help him break the bad habits of style and poor logic....but... I failed didn't I

BTW Read the first page or two of this thread and ask who is being polite and who is attacking the person. Quite illuminating.

In 1975 at Carelton U. science majors took regular Arts 101 courses. Unfairly, an Arts major who had a whim to choose a science course could take a general science, as you put it, 011 course. Science majors could also take it but in their case it would be a zero credit. Artsies got full credit since it alluded to there being math involved in science even if the course did not include much if any.

Us hard science types always cop it hard. Despite what I said earlier I did learn a few things. Did one unit on Statistics and Probabilities which introduced me to "why do white sheep eat more than black sheep" << That one so evident in the TV commercials of those days "Four out of five dentists recommend Colgate Tooth paste" being one example.

Probably the only minor regret is that I never did a course in formal logic. Slight disadvantage when up against those on these forums who did formal logic.

But they are mostly "debunker" side and I have no difficulty tearing apart illogical arguments from truthers. Except it tends to take me a few words.

 

[DGM]

And I repeat for the umpteenth time... It doesn't matter what Tom thinks or DGM or anyone... it matters what the mechanism(s) turn out to be...

You're right there, it doesn't matter that I believe ROOSD to be correct and have since about the beginning of 2002. I've revised and added some detail over the years but the jist is still the same.

Let the games begin!

I'm not really sure what game you're talking about. Would it be the one with the focus and obsession with Bazant?

 

[ozeco41]

You're right there, it doesn't matter that I believe ROOSD to be correct and have since about the beginning of 2002. I've revised and added some detail over the years but the jist is still the same.

Took me up till mid 2007.

Simple reason. I was on tour in Wales when I saw the BBC news releases showing the event. Plane strikes tower, Tower collapses was what I saw. No one-hour interval.
My reaction sequence:
1) Wow - fantastic multimedia fakery. oops
2) Oh faeces - its real; (Didn't really say "faeces" - I'm an Aussie.)
3) Oh you evil (illegitimately conceived persons) << that wasn't the word either. AU talk has a lot of "b" words.

then my military engineer's callous brain cut in
4) Oh you devilishly clever military demolition planners using aircraft..etc..

I thought it was "plane strike...immediate collapse" - had no concept of relative sizes plane v building.

Then mid 2007 a colleague asked me about the CD of the Twin Towers. He was a conspiracy nut - still is.

So I had to work out :
A) could I as a military engineer have demolished the towers if tasked by the general. (Yes but not the way they fell and I would get caught)
B) why the towers really did collapse. Including "was it CD"

Did a bit of Google research.

Learned about the one hour delays

Found the RichardDawkins forum. Learned that there was a person claiming to be an engineer making silly claims in published papers (T Sz) and worked out what really happened. Started posting 14 Nov 2007 and was moderating the Politics and Current Affairs Sub-Forum by late January 2008. Said this in my very first post:

The supporters of 9/11 conspiracies build on the same foundation as the creationists - poor logic, worse science together with distortions, lies and deliberate deceptions.

The paper referenced as Engineering Reality by Tony Szamboti is typical of many which look impressive in detail to the non-engineer. The complex calculations may even be correct but the base premises are faulty and the resulting conclusions can readily be demonstrated to be totally wrong.

..I was posting on an atheist forum and determined to say "Here I am don't ignore me... Hence the "creationist reference.

Probably took me four months of occasional chats and emails to this colleague. Before I started posting. Had the three mechanisms of progression worked out in broad outline by early 2008. Decided to never rely on NIST or other authorities - reasons posted several times.

Didn't have much to do with Bazant at that stage. Understood "limit case" but ignored his other works because he was wrong on the real event. Never got it fully clear until I made a comment here ~2010 and pgimeno OP'ed the "Applicability of Bazant.." thread after my comment raised his interest.

Came here 2009 - found that the ethos was dominated by resident experts who were bending over backwards to protect "Bazant would never make a single error..."- which is what prompted me to commit lèse majesté against Bazant. I even dared to correct Ryan Mackey on one of his (rare) errors which got me slapped down very hard as the upstart new boy. Gave me a measure of someone's insecurity.

I was a late starter. Didn't take long to get the "Three Mechanisms" in perspective. Never bothered with the core part - no one interested - so my focus on ROOSD and Perimeter Peel of same as MT. Then met MT et al through this forum.

The rest is history.

ROOSD is valid. A lot of Bazant is not valid for WTC 9/11. And there is still confusion.

 

[DGM]

ROOSD is valid. A lot of Bazant is not valid for WTC 9/11. And there is still confusion.

The point for me is I never really confused the two. I build buildings, I let the engineers do the hard math. After the first Bazant paper I really saw no point in studying them all that closely. The audience he intended was not me and I know for a fact it was also not conspiracy theorists.

An interesting thing to find out might be who actually introduced the Bazant works into this realm. I know Tony Sz was misusing them starting early 2007.

 

[ozeco41]

The point for me is I never really confused the two. I build buildings, I let the engineers do the hard math. After the first Bazant paper I really saw no point in studying them all that closely. The audience he intended was not me and I know for a fact it was also not conspiracy theorists.

Very much my perspective also.

One irritating aspect of recent angst posts is those who - in effect - claim "I was never confused --therefore there was no confusion".

My response to them is "Sorry. YOU may be right for you - or you may be using rose glasses 20/20 hindsight. BUT whether you were or were not confused is not the issue. Many were."

And those who were confused (on the limits of Bazant) dominated this forum when I first came here. Why else would I have taken them on?

An interesting thing to find out might be who actually introduced the Bazant works into this realm. I know Tony Sz was misusing them starting early 2007.

That aligns well with that first post of mine. 2007 - the paper "Engineering Reality" - it had several revisions IIRC but is no longer available and I didn't keep a copy.

"Missing Jolt" is pure Bazant abstract assumptions misapplied to the real event. Tony often "mixes and matches" and gets it wrong at quite basic levels of false reasoning. I've actually told him exactly where the problems are - several times - He's a "technical details engineer" - doesn't do "reasoning". Not rare animals by any standard - I've dealt with many of them over the years. I'll bet you have also. Forests v trees?? Alligators or swamp draining???

And the problem is not solely the "initiating fall" but the whole 1D simplification of what is 3D and MUST be analysed as 3D. Plus dynamic so 4D if you prefer that terminology - I don't.

That specifically is the "cascade failure" of initiation and whatever "transition" there was to ROOSD progression. As I currently understand the phases there is no need for "transition" once you get the whole 3D dynamic in perspective/comprehension... it is one continuing sequence. Actually took me some years to get it all in perspective. AND that transition has no big discontinuities which Bazant's model assumes for its limit case and which T Sz applies wrongly to the real event "Missing Jolt". (Several other cross over confusions I'll leave out for simplicity in this statement.)

And, if you want an interesting "Twist" - Bazant is a lot more Szambotian than many people realise.

 

[rwguinn]

Very much my perspective also.

One irritating aspect of recent angst posts is those who - in effect - claim "I was never confused --therefore there was no confusion".

My response to them is "Sorry. YOU may be right for you - or you may be using rose glasses 20/20 hindsight. BUT whether you were or were not confused is not the issue. Many were."

And those who were confused (on the limits of Bazant) dominated this forum when I first came here. Why else would I have taken them on?
That aligns well with that first post of mine. 2007 - the paper "Engineering Reality" - it had several revisions IIRC but is no longer available and I didn't keep a copy.

Since there is nothing available prior to 2006 on this forum, it is very difficult to show anything. In fact, the Forum has my join date as 2003- and I have been posting here since well before that.
By 2007, we were all very weary of the BS that had been explained ad nauseum since September 12 2001. The confusion was basically all newbies, rehashing the previously chopped and fried garbage many of us had ceased bothering with

"Missing Jolt" is pure Bazant abstract assumptions misapplied to the real event. Tony often "mixes and matches" and gets it wrong at quite basic levels of false reasoning. I've actually told him exactly where the problems are - several times - He's a "technical details engineer" - doesn't do "reasoning". Not rare animals by any standard - I've dealt with many of them over the years. I'll bet you have also. Forests v trees?? Alligators or swamp draining???

And the problem is not solely the "initiating fall" but the whole 1D simplification of what is 3D and MUST be analysed as 3D. Plus dynamic so 4D if you prefer that terminology - I don't.

That specifically is the "cascade failure" of initiation and whatever "transition" there was to ROOSD progression. As I currently understand the phases there is no need for "transition" once you get the whole 3D dynamic in perspective/comprehension... it is one continuing sequence. Actually took me some years to get it all in perspective. AND that transition has no big discontinuities which Bazant's model assumes for its limit case and which T Sz applies wrongly to the real event "Missing Jolt". (Several other cross over confusions I'll leave out for simplicity in this statement.)

And, if you want an interesting "Twist" - Bazant is a lot more Szambotian than many people realise.

no ****, sherlock.

 

[JSanderO]

Interesting history of this discussion. I was completely divorced from all discussion and debate and only became interested when I came about some truther videos. I was mostly disturbed that the USA jumped into ME wars and the nation was acting so creepy... The reaction was very troubling... So the truth pitches seemed to make it seem that the reaction was INTENDED as 9/11 was an inside job. This had some level of logic to it and so I went to a 9/11 truther event on 9/11/09 and met Gage and Tony and offered to get involved... I was with AE911T from October 09 til the beginning of Feb 2010 during which time I did a stint on their board. But I also saw the total BS that this group was... and was at loggerheads with them... and of course was tossed out as a spy... It was only then beginning in Feb that I tried to figure the collapses out on my own... and came up with the vertical avalanche concept which I sent to Gage and Ross... Ross had left the truthers because he thought they were essentially idiots... He might have completely moved away from his beliefs too since then... I found the 911 Free Forums where real interesting information and analysis was taking place and I came across the ROOSD idea which seem to confirm my own conception. I didn't even know the names of the big guys... Bazant... Greening and so on... What mattered to me was what made sense. I didn't even know that JREF existed then either... But it's pretty clear that 9/11 is a very emotionally charged topic for both sides... and they seem to egg each other on... I am so through with these "debates"...

The games I refer to is the coming debate about initiation... year... specificity... suggested models... This probably won't happen... it's too speculative perhaps...

 

[carlitos]

That is intriguing. The Shuttle blew up. It blew up because a tank exploded from fire the cause was a failed O ring. So in that case you agree knowing the real cause was important for the Shuttle.

For the WTC Towers collapses we have two stages - initiation and progression. If you are saying "initiation" was the "O ring" I agree. That was the NIST position (once it started) "global collapse was inevitable". From that perspective your statement:
Is correct for you. Sorry for that - analogies are always vulnerable in the presence of experts.

BUT we have been discussing WTC Twin Towers progressions not initiation.

.....

Let me know if I'm wrong.

Not wrong. As a non-engineer, I just don't see the point of discussing "progression" much when the building was doomed to fail. You, MT and others find it interesting, while I find it akin to discussing the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. The video analysis in particular bores me to tears. Let alone the pop psychology, frames vs. fields, and other nonsense.

I imagine the world's biggest Jenga game. You pulled a piece, and it fell. How exactly did it fall? Well, you lose no matter what. You could videotape it in slo-mo, you could measure how far and fast the pieces bounced off of each other, but why?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Not wrong. As a non-engineer, I just don't see the point of discussing "progression" much when the building was doomed to fail. You, MT and others find it interesting, while I find it akin to discussing the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. The video analysis in particular bores me to tears. Let alone the pop psychology, frames vs. fields, and other nonsense.

I imagine the world's biggest Jenga game. You pulled a piece, and it fell. How exactly did it fall? Well, you lose no matter what. You could videotape it in slo-mo, you could measure how far and fast the pieces bounced off of each other, but why?

As a structural engineer, I'm not interested in studying the collapse progression of a building where the majority of the columns failed over several stories. I'm not going to design a skyscraper to arrest a collapse of this nature because it's simply not possible within reasonable economics.

Disproportionate collapse, such as Ronan Point, is of interest.

But those are two completely different scenarios.