• 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.
bardamu said:
If you invested a little time in refining the original flawed, non-conspiratorial explanation, you might be able to convince some of the 1202 architectural and engineering professionals who've signed up to Richard Gage's petition.
Click to expand...
On 911 issues those 1202 appear to be idiots. You and all 1202 have no evidence and you guys don't seem to have any reality based skills in engineering to help you all from falling for the lies of Gage and other idiots who spew the lies of CD.

You can't show any flaws in any of the explanations presented to support the "official story" of 19 terrorists with 4 planes hitting 3 buildings. 8 years is enough time to earn a PhD and all 911 truth has done is repeat the same old lies and delusions you fall for out of ignorance.
 
bardamu said:
If you invested a little time in refining the original flawed, non-conspiratorial explanation, you might be able to convince some of the 1202 architectural and engineering professionals who've signed up to Richard Gage's petition.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It could explain the location of every last piece of debris, and they'd reject it because they didn't like the conclusion.

Dave
 
beachnut said:
On 911 issues those 1202 appear to be idiots. You and all 1202 have no evidence and you guys don't seem to have any reality based skills in engineering to help you all from falling for the lies of Gage and other idiots who spew the lies of CD.
Click to expand...

If there are flaws in the non-conspiratorial explanation, it could be argued that supporters of that explanation must be idiots too, expecially when they continue to support the explanation unconditionally after the flaws have been pointed out to them.


beachnut said:
You can't show any flaws in any of the explanations presented to support the "official story" of 19 terrorists with 4 planes hitting 3 buildings. 8 years is enough time to earn a PhD and all 911 truth has done is repeat the same old lies and delusions you fall for out of ignorance.
Click to expand...

Major Tom has claimed there are flaws in Bazant's papers. As a supporter of Bazant, you could challenge Major Tom's claims and in doing so avoid giving the impression you're an idiot.
 
bardamu said:
If there are flaws in the non-conspiratorial explanation, it could be argued that supporters of that explanation must be idiots too, expecially when they continue to support the explanation unconditionally after the flaws have been pointed out to them.
Click to expand...

There are no flaws, unknowns or disagreements among relevant investigators that are resolved by proposing that anything but fire was the fundamental cause of the collapse of WTC1/2/7.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Could you please post some of these professionals' papers showing their positions and arguments for CD? Thanks.
Click to expand...

You've missed the point. Even if their arguments for CD are flawed, it's because the arguments for the official explanation are even more flawed that their numbers are increasing.


Dave Rogers said:
I disagree. It could explain the location of every last piece of debris, and they'd reject it because they didn't like the conclusion.
Click to expand...

Instead, you prefer to spend a great deal of your time attempting to disprove conspiracy theories using arguments based on a flawed explanation
 
bardamu said:
Instead, you prefer to spend a great deal of your time attempting to disprove conspiracy theories using arguments based on a flawed explanation
Click to expand...

The flaws are most usually in the imagination of the conspiracy theorists. And if the explanation was perfect, that would be questioned as suspicious in itself. Conspiracism is a starting point, not a conclusion.

Dave
 
bardamu said:
If there are flaws in the non-conspiratorial explanation, it could be argued that supporters of that explanation must be idiots too, expecially when they continue to support the explanation unconditionally after the flaws have been pointed out to them.




Major Tom has claimed there are flaws in Bazant's papers. As a supporter of Bazant, you could challenge Major Tom's claims and in doing so avoid giving the impression you're an idiot.
Click to expand...
Major Tom is not an engineer, he would not know a real flaw as he makes up delusional flaws and fools you. I guess you are an engineer and can check Tom's work? Are you? lol, you are silly spewing CD implications without evidence and supporting the failure of the CD delusion after 8 years.

Simple as pie; state the flaws and prove them. You can't, case closed you have delusions based on ignorance. CD is an insane claim when you use reality based evidence.

Major Tom can do a paper or letter to expose the flaws but he can't. He does not understand models and he proves it in the thread and if you tried you would understand.
 
bardamu said:
You've missed the point. Even if their arguments for CD are flawed, it's because the arguments for the official explanation are even more flawed that their numbers are increasing.
Click to expand...

:boggled::boggled::boggled:

WHAT?

Um. That's got to be just about the worst logic on the planet. 99.9% of the AE profession agrees that planes and fire led to the collapses. The other insignificant fraction are just wrong. And delusional.



Okay, mostly delusional.


Instead, you prefer to spend a great deal of your time attempting to disprove conspiracy theories using arguments based on a flawed explanation
Click to expand...

I've yet to see a single correct point proving a flaw.
 
"Major Tom has claimed there are flaws in Bazant's papers. As a supporter of Bazant, you could challenge Major Tom's claims and in doing so avoid giving the impression you're an idiot. "
Click to expand...

What I don't get is why he is so obsessed with Bazant? If he is right with his Roos theory or Bazant is right or even if both of them are wrong and another mechanism was at work that caused the collapse after initiation.........from a truther point of view IT DOES NOT MATTER! all three possibilities could have the aircraft impact and fires as the initiator.........unless he can prove that the Aircraft and fires could not be the initiator or comes up with evidence that there was in fact explosives, timers etc in the debris then it gains them nothing.:confused:
 
beachnut said:
Major Tom can do a paper or letter to expose the flaws but he can't. He does not understand models and he proves it in the thread and if you tried you would understand.
Click to expand...

You like to use models to support the official story, but whenever the models are challenged you claim the're just proof of concept and were never meant to represent reality.


Newtons Bit said:
That's got to be just about the worst logic on the planet.
Click to expand...

It's the same logic as was implied here:
Rika said:
If a is .04% wrong, and b is 4% wrong, which is better?
Click to expand...



Newtons Bit said:
I've yet to see a single correct point proving a flaw.
Click to expand...

The current sub-topic is whether it matters if the explanation is flawed.
 
Last edited:
sheeplesnshills said:
What I don't get is why he is so obsessed with Bazant? If he is right with his Roos theory or Bazant is right or even if both of them are wrong and another mechanism was at work that caused the collapse after initiation.........from a truther point of view IT DOES NOT MATTER! all three possibilities could have the aircraft impact and fires as the initiator.........unless he can prove that the Aircraft and fires could not be the initiator or comes up with evidence that there was in fact explosives, timers etc in the debris then it gains them nothing.:confused:
Click to expand...

The gain for the truth movement is that you'd no longer be able to say: "How did they plant explosives on all the floors without being seen by the office workers?" That's one of the reasons you have an aversion to the topic of this thread.
 
bardamu said:
The gain for the truth movement is that you'd no longer be able to say: "How did they plant explosives on all the floors without being seen by the office workers?" That's one of the reasons you have an aversion to the topic of this thread.
Click to expand...

So for years the 911 TM scoffed at the Pancake theory and now the clowns grasp at it like straws.

Too funny.
 
funk de fino said:
So for years the 911 TM scoffed at the Pancake theory and now the clowns grasp at it like straws.

Too funny.
Click to expand...

Might be an idea to remind yourself of the NIST position...

NIST said:
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers
Click to expand...

So what method of progressive destruction do you actually support, fdf ?

It's unimaginable that NIST could be wrong, surely ?

Are you going to disagree with NIST, or agree with ROOSD ? ;)
 
femr2 said:
Might be an idea to remind yourself of the NIST position...

Originally Posted by NIST
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers
Click to expand...
So what method of progressive destruction do you actually support, fdf ?

It's unimaginable that NIST could be wrong, surely ?

Are you going to disagree with NIST, or agree with ROOSD ? ;)
Click to expand...

NIST determined that the INITIATION of the collapse wasn't caused by pancaking as originally put forth by FEMA. As the truthers are so vehement about pointing out, NIST didn't go beyond the INITIATION phase of the collapses.

The propagation of the collapses is an entirely different mechanism of failure. Until the people that can't seem to see the difference between initiation and propagation get that through their thick skulls these are the types of posts we will continue to see.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
NIST determined that the INITIATION of the collapse wasn't caused by pancaking as originally put forth by FEMA. As the truthers are so vehement about pointing out, NIST didn't go beyond the INITIATION phase of the collapses.

The propagation of the collapses is an entirely different mechanism of failure. Until the people that can't seem to see the difference between initiation and propagation get that through their thick skulls these are the types of posts we will continue to see.
Click to expand...
I'm fully aware of the wooly context NIST placed on the dismissal.

So, let's be clear then...

You don't think initiation was caused by *pancaking*, but you do think propogation (or progression) was caused by *pancaking* ? Is that about right for you ?

It's probably not going to touch the sides to point out the equivalence of propogation and progression, but there it is.

You should note also that the ROOSD study does not include initiation, as explained a few times already within this thread.

You are of course very welcome to map out how you think condition 'A' can arise, such that ROOSD can propogate.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom