• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

OOS Collapse Propagation Model

Status
Not open for further replies.
R Mackey asks: "I'm not inclined to explain any further without some reciprocity from you. Third time: You're interested in "controlled demolition" of WTC 1 and 2. Will you follow the scientific method in your study? Yes or no?"

Reciprocity is good. I wasn't avoiding the question.

R Mackey asked: "Will you follow the scientific method in your study? Yes or no?"

I answered: "How would you classify the approach of Sherlock Holmes? If his methodology was considered scientific, good. If not, what methods did he use?"
\>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And mine to you:

1) R Mackey, in a post on page 3 you wrote: " Personally, I like how he seems to think Bazant and Le (2002) is supposed to be an accurate description of the collapse rather than a limiting case, or that he thinks that plus Bazant and Verdure (2006) cover the entire scope of the literature. As if we hadn't explained this to practically every Truther who ever lived a million times each."

Of course you were confusing Bazant and Le with Bazant and Zhao. Do you agree with Dave and Myriad that the crush up, crush down model developed in BV and BL was meant as just a limiting case, or does Bazant believe it really applies to WTC1?


and another...

2) R Mackey, does Dr Bazant believe WTC1 experienced crush down, then crush up as he explains or is the idea of crush down, then crush up just a "limiting hypothetical case in which the structure is best able to resist collapse".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Dave, Myriad and NB have made their opinions clear already. You have not. I need a clear answer from you before I can respond to them.
 
Major_Tom said:
R Mackey asks: "I'm not inclined to explain any further without some reciprocity from you. Third time: You're interested in "controlled demolition" of WTC 1 and 2. Will you follow the scientific method in your study? Yes or no?"

Reciprocity is good. I wasn't avoiding the question.

R Mackey asked: "Will you follow the scientific method in your study? Yes or no?"

I answered: "How would you classify the approach of Sherlock Holmes? If his methodology was considered scientific, good. If not, what methods did he use?"
Click to expand...

So now you answer my question with a totally idiotic nonsense question.

I won't bother asking again. I will simply note that you are being deliberately evasive. Whether you are just a troll, can't even define the Scientific Method beyond vague analogy to mythical figures of popular literature, or have the reading comprehension of concrete, I neither know nor care. There is no need nor purpose in taking you seriously, and this thread is proof.
 
That is absurd. What methodology does a good investigative reporter use or a person trying to solve a crime? I'm not avoiding anything.

R Mackey writes: "I neither know nor care. There is no need nor purpose in taking you seriously, and this thread is proof"

Do you believe that WTC1 collapsed by a "crush down, then crush up"?

Does Dr Bazant seem to believe it literally, or as just some "limiting case".

These are very important questions to answer correctly and it is you who are being evasive, because you know that no matter how you answer the question you will have to admit major flaws in much of what Dr Bazant claims in his paper.

You do not have to be a genius to see that the type of collapse propagation shown in the study contradicts much of what Dr Bazant says about "crush down, then crush up".

Instead of just admitting Dr Bazant guessed wrong about "crush down, then crush up", some other posters claim he doesn't mean what he says to be literally applied to WTC1, because if he did mean it literally it would show that the Great Dr Bazant made some pretty big boo-boos in the papers many of you treat as Gospel.

Because NB, Myriad, Dave and R Mackey cannot admit Dr Bazant is subject to error just like the rest of us humans, they are forced to make claims that I will show contradict what Dr Bazant writes in his papers. Because of this I expect each to cling to the notion of an "upper block" and "crush down, then crush up" despite visual evidence to the contrary. I ask them questions about these imaginary concepts to see if they agree or disagree with Dr Bazant.

They are forced to keep clinging to those imaginary concepts or admit Dr Bazant may be wrong from time to time.
 
It is absurd, but it's your fault. You are not Sherlock Holmes. You aren't even Inspector Clouseau.

The question you've asked is a scientific one. Yet you don't even know what the scientific method is. That pretty much irretrievably defines you as a consummate fraud.
 
Of course I don't claim to be Sherlock Holmes.

R Mackey comments: "Yet you don't even know what the scientific method is."

Is that the thing you used to claim that WTC7 fell naturally?

Please use the scientific method to show that crush down, then crush up applies to WTC1 as Dr Bazant claims

Do you agree Dr Bazant believes crush down, then crush up applies literally to WTC1?

I could just answer the question for you since I know you won't. Yes. He believes this literally and applies it literally in BLGB.
 
Yes, the Scientific Method is what we use to claim WTC 7 fell "naturally."

Like I said, you don't understand it. Not a big surprise, given you couldn't even understand this post, even after I wrote it at a level comprehensible to six-year-old.

There's simply no way we can dumb it down anymore. You just don't have what it takes.
 
Profanz said:
...Bazant? Please. He came to a conclusion two days after the attacks based on no real investigation at all. Why do you keep trotting that lame crap out? ...
Click to expand...
What learning disability does 911 truth suffer from? Why can't you figure out 911?
Let me breakdown the gage on timing to understand 911.
Best is to figure out 911 and take action, it was done in minutes by Flight 93 Heroes who took action!

Next is the rest of the world figured out 911 in a day or two and refined the details as facts and evidence unfolded.

Bazant was able to do a model in a day, he must of finished college and learned something; what is your excuse for failing to figure out 911 in days?

Review:
Flight 93 Passengers best at figuring out 911 they took MINUTES!
Bazant took a day to model the collapse of the WTC; DAYS!
911 truth and you have no clue and prove it daily by posting your ignorance on 911 as often as the spirit moves you! 8 years and NO JOY!

We have heroes who figured out 911 in minutes and 911 truth who can't figure out 911 given 8 years and the answers! Why are you unable to figure out 911? Not enough time or can't grasp the evidence? Problems with math and physics?

The people with "lame crap", are 911 truth who can't figure out 911 given the answers. This new paper is indicative of the failure of 911 truth and those who prefer nonsensical lies you tacitly support over reality.
 
My original question to R Mackey was: "Is there any way, by using any of Dr Bazant's arguments about WTC1 in any of his papers, to distinguish between a natural collapse and a CD which takes advantage of ROOSD? "

To which he responded:

"Either logic or the English language escape you -- I answered you in the post you responded to. That was the whole point of the post!

Tell you what. I'll try again, and I'll use small words and simple sentences.

1. There is no evidence for explosives. None.

2. The closest there has ever been was a belief that only explosives would cause collapses like that.

3. This belief is false. Dr. Bazant's papers prove this.

4. Therefore, his papers rule out a controlled demolition."

R Mackey seems quite proud of that answer, having repeated it in his last post. I must be too dumb to see anything but avoidance in his answer.

I'll answer the original question for you, R Mackey. The answer is "no".

R Mackey, please point to the section or paragraph in BGLB which shows how we can distinguish between the 2 cases and "rule out demolition". A direct quote please.

But the question that R Mackey really cannot answer is:

Does Dr Bazant believe crush down, then crush up applies literally to WTC1?

He avoids answering this because he must either disagree with Dr Bazant or admit that R Mackey, too, takes "crush down, then crush up" literally. Taking a stand either way will prove too embarrassing for him.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Consider this comment by NB on page 1:

" Incidentally, you haven't done anything to debunk crush-up / crush-down. Even in a floor failing model, crush-up / crush-down still applies due to the simple fact that there is very little force being applied to the upper block. The rubble layer is still doing all the destruction."

NB, open your eyes and look at the 4 physical observations in the study. You will seriously try to defend Dr Bazant's crush down, then crush up to the literal case of WTC1?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


On page 3 Myriad writes: " Bazant's model is a limiting case representing the most favorable assumptions for collapse arrest. Among those assumptions is that all the weight of the falling mass -- even the already crushed and broken rubble -- somehow lands squarely on columns.

In that model, meaning under those assumptions, crush-down precedes crush-up. Bazant shows how and why."

This means Myriad would say that Dr Bazant does not take the idea of "crush down, then crush up" as applying literally to WTC1. He may want to consider what Dr Bazant says in BLGB on the subject. Myriad, are you sure Dr Bazant doesn't think "crush down, then crush up" is actually what happened to WTC1?
 
Last edited:
Major_Tom said:
...
This means Myriad would say that Dr Bazant does not take the idea of "crush down, then crush up" as applying literally to WTC1. He may want to consider what Dr Bazant says in BLGB on the subject. Myriad, are you sure Dr Bazant doesn't think "crush down, then crush up" is actually what happened to WTC1?
Click to expand...
What is the purpose of proving repeatedly your ignorance of models? Do you share the same problem as Gage and Jones, being blinded by some psychotic pursuit of CD and other idiotic conspiracy theories?

Your paper is hogwash and has no purpose other than a rubber stamp for insane CD conspiracy theories. Attacking models you don't understand amplifies your failure.

You posted papers which clearly, if you understand them, rule out CD. Why are you wasting time on papers which make your delusional CD claims false? You need to find the "evidence" for CD! Sad for you, there is none as you have to make up fictional of silent explosives used by fictional bad guys in the next "loaded diaper" from Jones.
 
beachnut said:
What is the purpose of proving repeatedly your ignorance of models? Do you share the same problem as Gage and Jones, being blinded by some psychotic pursuit of CD and other idiotic conspiracy theories?

Your paper is hogwash and has no purpose other than a rubber stamp for insane CD conspiracy theories. Attacking models you don't understand amplifies your failure.

You posted papers which clearly, if you understand them, rule out CD. Why are you wasting time on papers which make your delusional CD claims false? You need to find the "evidence" for CD! Sad for you, there is none as you have to make up fictional of silent explosives used by fictional bad guys in the next "loaded diaper" from Jones.
Click to expand...

I wonder when he's going to debunk Gage's cardboard box "model"...
 
A summary of my questions concerning the Bazant papers asked thus far:


1) In BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs. Does he mean this literally?

2) Do you consider the equations of motion in BV, equations 12 and 17, to be accurate for WTC1 considering the information in the ROOSD study?

3) Does Dr Bazant believe crush down, then crush up applies literally to WTC1? (or as just a "limiting hypothetical case in which the structure is best able to resist collapse")

4) Are the findings in the OOS study consistent with the claims of crush down preceding crush up in BV and BL?

5) Where in the BLGB arguments is the possibility of a CD based on ROOSD, exploiting the natural weaknesses of the building with minimal explosives, addressed?

If it is not, is it not true that the the arguments in BLGB are largely irrelevant when considering this type of controlled demolition?

6) When Bazant makes the following statement in BL, what does he mean?:

"So it must be concluded that the simplifying hypothesis of
one-way crushing (i.e., of absence of simultaneous crush-up),
made in the original paper, was perfectly justified and caused
only an imperceptible difference in the results. The crush-up
simultaneous with the crush down is found to have advanced
into the overlying story by only 37 mm for the North Tower
and 26 mm for the South Tower. This means that the initial
crush-up phase terminates when the axial displacement of
columns is only about 10 times larger than their maximum
elastic deformation. Hence, simplifying the analysis by neglecting
the initial two-way crushing phase was correct and
accurate."

Is he applying this to WTC1, or to just a hypothetical extreme case?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

These questions were carefully chosen to expose fundamental weaknesses in Dr Bazant's papers. They also can help us understand the papers better. This is important because there are many false beliefs about what the papers say and do not say.

I do not expect most of you to be able to answer these questions, though if you claim to understand the papers you really ought to be able to answer them by citing quotes from the (correct) papers. Instead we'll go through the questions together and look for the answers using direct quotations of Dr Bazant's own words.

What we have seen in the first 5 pages of this thread is there are many misconceptions about the papers. In the future, an astute reader may want to ask those provide interpretations of what Dr Bazant "felt" or "intended" in the papers to back up their opinions with actual quotes from the (correct) papers. If they cannot, you should be very wary about what and who to "believe".

The list of questions is not complete and will keep on growing.
 
R.Mackey said:
Either logic or the English language escape you -- I answered you in the post you responded to. That was the whole point of the post!

Tell you what. I'll try again, and I'll use small words and simple sentences.

1. There is no evidence for explosives. None.

2. The closest there has ever been was a belief that only explosives would cause collapses like that.

3. This belief is false. Dr. Bazant's papers prove this.

4. Therefore, his papers rule out a controlled demolition.


Don't respond yet, just read the above until you understand.

Now that you understand, it's my turn to ask a question. You're interested in "controlled demolition" of WTC 1 and 2. Will you follow the scientific method in your study? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

I find it staggering that Major Tom is unable to understand the above qouted post.

So, let me inquire...Tom...do you indeed understand what Ryan was stating in the above quoted post?

Simple Yes or No.

If "No"..why not?

If "Yes"..what?
 
Yes it is.

Major_Tom said:
The list of questions is not complete and will keep on growing.
Click to expand...

carlitos said:
Major_Tom said:
minimal explosives
Click to expand...
- LOL.

Please calculate the minimal explosives required, including their likely decibel levels.
Major_Tom said:
this type of controlled demolition?
Click to expand...

What type? Please give some examples of this "type" of controlled demolition. Or shall I switch into truther argument from incredulity and as if this is the only time in history that such a CD took place? Was it the real CD deal?
Click to expand...

Also, do you see what's in the circle here? Once pressed, all will become clear.
 
Last edited:
Major_Tom said:
A summary of my questions concerning the Bazant papers asked thus far:


1) In BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs. Does he mean this literally?

2) Do you consider the equations of motion in BV, equations 12 and 17, to be accurate for WTC1 considering the information in the ROOSD study?

3) Does Dr Bazant believe crush down, then crush up applies literally to WTC1? (or as just a "limiting hypothetical case in which the structure is best able to resist collapse")

4) Are the findings in the OOS study consistent with the claims of crush down preceding crush up in BV and BL?

5) Where in the BLGB arguments is the possibility of a CD based on ROOSD, exploiting the natural weaknesses of the building with minimal explosives, addressed?

If it is not, is it not true that the the arguments in BLGB are largely irrelevant when considering this type of controlled demolition?

6) When Bazant makes the following statement in BL, what does he mean?:

"So it must be concluded that the simplifying hypothesis of
one-way crushing (i.e., of absence of simultaneous crush-up),
made in the original paper, was perfectly justified and caused
only an imperceptible difference in the results. The crush-up
simultaneous with the crush down is found to have advanced
into the overlying story by only 37 mm for the North Tower
and 26 mm for the South Tower. This means that the initial
crush-up phase terminates when the axial displacement of
columns is only about 10 times larger than their maximum
elastic deformation. Hence, simplifying the analysis by neglecting
the initial two-way crushing phase was correct and
accurate."

Is he applying this to WTC1, or to just a hypothetical extreme case?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

These questions were carefully chosen to expose fundamental weaknesses in Dr Bazant's papers. They also can help us understand the papers better. This is important because there are many false beliefs about what the papers say and do not say.

I do not expect most of you to be able to answer these questions, though if you claim to understand the papers you really ought to be able to answer them by citing quotes from the (correct) papers. Instead we'll go through the questions together and look for the answers using direct quotations of Dr Bazant's own words.

What we have seen in the first 5 pages of this thread is there are many misconceptions about the papers. In the future, an astute reader may want to ask those provide interpretations of what Dr Bazant "felt" or "intended" in the papers to back up their opinions with actual quotes from the (correct) papers. If they cannot, you should be very wary about what and who to "believe".

The list of questions is not complete and will keep on growing.
Click to expand...

thank you very much - it is obviously, that there is a mayor problem with Bazant claim of a "crush-up" after a complete "crush-down". Everybody can see, even in self-proclaimed "debunker"-videos about a french controlled demolition ("on behalf of Ferrari Dominique"):
The upper block is destroyed together with the block underneath it.
 
Carll68 said:
I find it staggering that Major Tom is unable to understand the above qouted post.

So, let me inquire...Tom...do you indeed understand what Ryan was stating in the above quoted post?

Simple Yes or No.

If "No"..why not?

If "Yes"..what?
Click to expand...

I suspect everybody is able to understand that Mackey's post is a dodge.
 
dafydd said:
You speak for yourself,I understood his post very well because I am not a brain dead truther.
Click to expand...

It's really not very far from stating that, as NORAD tracks him, the Postal Service accept his mail and many many millions of mums and dads couldn't ALL be lying...that's proof that Santa Claus exists.

Brain dead ? Might be a good idea to be more careful. Blind agreement could leave you looking more and more like your avatar, unless that's actually you already of course.
 
No,that is Captain Beefheart in his Trout Mask Replica days.As regards the brain dead statement,I refer you to Jammonious,The Critta,Bill Smith,911 Investigator and others whose names escape me.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom