No worries - you get a minimum B on the test by default, through the 'bug ugly creatures' affirmative action program.
OOS Collapse Propagation Model
- Thread starter Major_Tom
- Start date
- Status
No worries - you get a minimum B on the test by default, through the 'bug ugly creatures' affirmative action program.
How does the BV method differ from the Seffen method?
What that in the book? is this assigned reading
Does your, "gravity collapse is an illusion" still stand? Is that in the book and part of OOSCPM.
What is the answer; is it in the "book" workbook?
Where can we can the workbook with answers?
911 was done by 19 terrorists, yet 911 truth followers make up lies about 911 - how does OOSCPM work to debunk 911 truth lies?
What that in the book? is this assigned reading
Does your, "gravity collapse is an illusion" still stand? Is that in the book and part of OOSCPM.
What is the answer; is it in the "book" workbook?
Where can we can the workbook with answers?
911 was done by 19 terrorists, yet 911 truth followers make up lies about 911 - how does OOSCPM work to debunk 911 truth lies?
Did you know there were that many studies, with math.
Considering the links provided so far, there are at least 6 different lenses which can be used to understand BV more clearly:
1) Direct comparision between Bazant and Seffen methods and their key equations of motion (Seffen eq 12 compared to Bazant eqs 12 and 17)
2)) A basic study of 1-dimensional stacked system collision interactions with a variety of parameters altered linked here. This gives one a simple, practical sense of 1-dimensional multiple body interactions, like the type described in BV eqs 12 and 17, and the possible varieties of mechanical movements that can result from them.
3) Direct comparison of claims within BV to the actual collapse propagation rates which were recorded after the 2007-2008 Bazant papers were written.
4) Quotes by David Benson demonstrating how he understood the relationship between BV eqs 12, 17 and the actual collapses of WTC1, 2.
5) Statements by Bazant in BL (the closure to BV) and BLGB demonstrating how he understood the relationship between BV eqs 12, 17 and the actual collapses of WTC1, 2
6) Comparison of statements about WTC1 and 2 made within BV, BL, and BLGB directly with the visual record of events.
So far, since the very first page of this thread, only one regular JREF poster (Ozeco) was able to spot any mistakes or contradictions within BV. For over 4 years BV was defended by most every regular poster within this thread.
WIth the tools now available each of these separate lenses can help shed light on the accuracy and meaning of BV eqs 12 and 17.
1) Direct comparision between Bazant and Seffen methods and their key equations of motion (Seffen eq 12 compared to Bazant eqs 12 and 17)
2)) A basic study of 1-dimensional stacked system collision interactions with a variety of parameters altered linked here. This gives one a simple, practical sense of 1-dimensional multiple body interactions, like the type described in BV eqs 12 and 17, and the possible varieties of mechanical movements that can result from them.
3) Direct comparison of claims within BV to the actual collapse propagation rates which were recorded after the 2007-2008 Bazant papers were written.
4) Quotes by David Benson demonstrating how he understood the relationship between BV eqs 12, 17 and the actual collapses of WTC1, 2.
5) Statements by Bazant in BL (the closure to BV) and BLGB demonstrating how he understood the relationship between BV eqs 12, 17 and the actual collapses of WTC1, 2
6) Comparison of statements about WTC1 and 2 made within BV, BL, and BLGB directly with the visual record of events.
So far, since the very first page of this thread, only one regular JREF poster (Ozeco) was able to spot any mistakes or contradictions within BV. For over 4 years BV was defended by most every regular poster within this thread.
WIth the tools now available each of these separate lenses can help shed light on the accuracy and meaning of BV eqs 12 and 17.
Is there math in those lenses. Do they help with the math.
This is the best lens...
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pr...s/AF-S-NIKKOR-70-200mm-f%2F2.8G-ED-VR-II.html
Why does 911 truth hate math, and engineering?
Has the OOSCPM solved your illusion for the "gravity collapse being an illusion?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
What happened to this thread being about ROOSD (OOS)?
Read your first post and explain how all these posts of yours are not off topic.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
My editorial services are supplied pro bono.
MileHighMadness
Muse
M_T nobody cares
The OOS thread was started in May, 2010. The first reflexive 'knee-jerk' reaction to the information in this forum is recorded in the first 8 pages of the thread for all to see.
It is expressed most completely and articulately by Newtons Bit, R Mackey, Dave Rogers, and Myriad and their reasoning can be reviewed at the links below:
Newtons Bit
R Mackey
Dave Rogers and Myriad
The first knee-jerk reaction to the OOS model was to cite BV or BZ while misrepresenting BV. Every one of these explanations misrepresented BV, but no regular JREF poster seemed to notice and only 1 regular JREF poster (Ozeco) seems to notice more than 4 years later.
Taken together, these explanations by Newtons Bit, R Mackey, Dave Rogers, and Myriad established some common and simple 'memes' within the thread from the very first page. Since then these 'memes' have taken on a life of their own. Many other posters have simply repeated these 'memes' throughout the thread for the last 4 years. These same 'memes' still as active and deep-rooted as ever as can be verified easily by looking at the last 5 pages of posts.
The identical 'memes', first established in first 2 pages of the thread, all revolve around misrepresenting BV.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
I'm picturing M_T's (hypothetical, apparently) thesis defense. 52 PowerPoint slides, nodding off PhD's, and at the end they ask "So what?", and he doesn't have an answer.
No PhD for you. Come back, one year!
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
You can't have a thesis where the emphasis is "can anyone see the contradiction between Bazant and ROOSD?" and "lololol, Bazant is dumb". 
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
So you immediately abandoned discussion of ROOSD and chose instead to pursue these memes, ad infinitum.
From my perspective... there is not much to discuss about ROOSD. It seems like the best fit explanation and I don't see any loose ends.
The issue is how did the driving ROOSD mass get *created*.
And then there is the issue of the 9/11 community both side, all sides not embracing this explanation and instead sort of attacking the messenger... mostly on style. Obviously the simple ROOSD explanation was missed by most people who were interested in the collapses. But now you have a few who claim... no biggie... a rose by any other name is a rose and it's just global collapse so what the big deal?
Tom seems to find it interesting how so many people refuse to see how the big guys who were cited as the next best thing to sliced bread re the collapse math... were really off the mark. And that's pretty remarkable. Lot of hubris here fellas. This sort of thing may have prevented intelligent people from acting intelligently and confronted with that they resort to ridicule.
Very telling...
The issue is how did the driving ROOSD mass get *created*.
And then there is the issue of the 9/11 community both side, all sides not embracing this explanation and instead sort of attacking the messenger... mostly on style. Obviously the simple ROOSD explanation was missed by most people who were interested in the collapses. But now you have a few who claim... no biggie... a rose by any other name is a rose and it's just global collapse so what the big deal?
Tom seems to find it interesting how so many people refuse to see how the big guys who were cited as the next best thing to sliced bread re the collapse math... were really off the mark. And that's pretty remarkable. Lot of hubris here fellas. This sort of thing may have prevented intelligent people from acting intelligently and confronted with that they resort to ridicule.
Very telling...
Did you get those links you asked for.
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
I think it's very telling that certain people (read: you, Major_Tom) refuse to acknowledge that Bazant et al were discussing different issues with different parameters than Major_Tom. But keep on acting superior on it, it provides a laugh for the rest of us.
You can't have a thesis where the emphasis is "can anyone see the contradiction between Bazant and ROOSD?" and "lololol, Bazant is dumb".
That is not a thesis. It is a question I use to check how you and others perceive claims made by Bazant in BV, BL, and BLGB from 2010 to 2014.
Bazant certainly is not dumb. He was simply limited in data and collapse mappings. From BV implications and conclusions:
At that time people had access to the first few seconds of roofline or antenna drop data and the seismic records.
Bazant seemed to have no concrete concept of a WTC collapse mode at all. Neither did Seffen. They both predicted the collapse front propagation from limited data and a limited conception of collapse mode.
Collapse fronts were later identified and the propagation of a collapse front was measured.
I don't really care about Bazant... In fact I never read his work, nor am interested in it frankly.
I came into this entire matter because as a dumb architect who actually worked for Emory Roth & Sons as my first job out of college in 1970... I was surprised at how quickly they collapsed. I don't work as a civil engineer or with steel framed tall buildings. I appreciate the *assault* was way out of spec and learned the details as I began to look closely at the matter (material from the internet).
Finding the notion of pancakes falling like records on an old record changer... a comical cartoon... I was baffled that PBS, and NatGeo would present this rubbish. No one stepped forward with a decent graphic or understandable explanation as to the mechanism of the collapse of the towers.
BUT studying the visuals closely it was all there in plain site... and the ROOSD explanation made perfect sense. I got into the technical search for answers in 2009 and in a few months came upon what I called a vertical avalanche which Tom called ROOSD. I discovered his work when I joined 911FF in search of answers.
I was satisfied with the collapse phase being a ROOSD. I was and remain interested in the initiation of ROOSD. I don't give a hoot about Bazant and what he was showing with his math. He wasn't as far as I understand showing the math for ROOSD and so his work was irrelevant to the collapse I saw.
This has nothing to do with *acting superior*... Many of the posters on this forum are smarter and more qualified in engineering than me. What this has to do with the weird attitudes of people and their egos. The tone of this discussion looks like something from 14 year olds. Obviously intelligence has nothing to do with maturity.
Last edited:
No. I attempted to warn people they are misreading BV. Page 2 of the thread:
Bolded and in capital letters, like I was shouting exactly where to look for mistakes in BV.
But nobody listened.
On page 11 I gave links to detailed reviews of each paper:
On page 11 of this thread I wrote reviews for each of the papers and linked to them in this post:
Ignored
When I watched how my comments and reviews were ignored I started an OP called 3 Bazant papers debunked
which was merged into page 33 of the "applicability" thread and once again was basically ignored.
.........................
I knew what some of you were doing wrong on the first page. 4 years later only one regular poster can spot a mistake in BV. It was the JREF group that pursued the memes and stlll do. This is all recorded.
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
The central issue is that Major_Tom is right on three key points which are related. They are:
1) The leading process of WTC1 and WTC2 progression was material falling down the "tube" of the office space - resulting in peel off of the perimeter as a second mechanism;
2) The Bazant papers do not address the "real mechanism" and are wrong when they apply their "one-dimensional" "columns in line" mechanism to the WTC collapses as if that 1D simplification was the real event;
3) There was in 2010 and still is in recent posts "confusion" about the limits of applicability of Bazant's works to the real events. The "confusion" in scare quotes because there can be no excuse for those who are wrong persisting in their wrong claims.
"Debunker" members here seem unable to relate to the fact that a person they have decided is a truther could be right on some issues where they are wrong.
And there is a fourth issue - one of lexical taxonomy. Denial of the need to label the specific WTC mechanism as ROOSD because there is an existing generic label "progression".
That one is analogous to saying 'we don't need words for "apple" or "orange" because there is a word "fruit"' OR putting it in engineering - we don't need a word for "bolts" or "welds" because there is a word "fasteners".
Then the repeated demands for "math" or "FEA" when the issues in dispute are ones of:
a) Describing a mechanism NOT quantifying the operational factors;
b) Errors of reading comprehension; OR
c) Errors of logic; OR
d) wrong steps in discussion process.
NONE of those four are amenable to math or FEA computation.
There are others.
The sad aspect is not that someone makes those false or irrelevant comments but that no-one even questions them.
How about we drop the ridicule from those who are not even clear on what the topic is. Or not clear on the content of the topic - e.g. where Bazant is wrong in BV.
And those who are not interested in the topic - why post? Why simply echo ridicule which is based on false comprehensions? Or worse?
- Status