OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[femr2]

The buildings collapsed d[ue] to being hit by the air[craft, ] and resulting fires (with the ever[-]present help of gravity). In the case of building 7[,] fire[,] with the added benefit of ventilation from the damage from the collapse of the towers[,] lead to it's demise.


Clear and simple enough?

No. Utterly ignorant of the question posed, which as you seem to have an incredibly short attention-span, I'll repeat again...

Anyone feel like being clear about the NIST initiation sequence ?

Any objection to...

1) South face failure, followed rapidly by...
2) South to North core and East/West perimeter failure, followed rapidly by...
3) North face failure.

 

[beachnut]

No. Utterly ignorant of the question posed, which as you seem to have an incredibly short attention-span, I'll repeat again...

Anyone feel like being clear about the NIST initiation sequence ?

Any objection to...

1) South face failure, followed rapidly by...
2) South to North core and East/West perimeter failure, followed rapidly by...
3) North face failure.

NIST had goals and wrote lots of material. You failed to distill NIST into a simple post as your CD delusions want for evidence, you attack NIST and can't even grasp the goals NIST had as you fail to understand 911 after 8 years of failure and delusions. When will you get to the Pentagon, or the field in Pennsylvania? Failed conspiracy theorist, 911 truth has less evidence than Bigfoot nuts.

Is Major Tom's paper so bad you have to make up your version of what NIST said? You, Heiwa and Major Tom don't understand 911, gravity, physics, fire and more as you enter the out years of delusions on 911.

Try getting back on topic, why is Major Tom's paper a failure, and why does he mention CD in the conclusion when no CD took place on 911? How do you guys all have the same delusion of CD? I know Jones went insane and made up thermite; what is your excuse for making up lies and failing to understand the structure of the WTC? Why did Major Tom's paper fail?

 

[femr2]

NIST had goals and wrote lots of material. You failed to distill NIST into a simple post as your CD delusions want for evidence, you attack NIST and can't even grasp the goals NIST had as you fail to understand 911 after 8 years of failure and delusions.

There is something called - punctuation. Try breathing beachnut. It'll help you form your head-rush of rabid thought process into coherent sentences.

I take it you neither agree, nor disagree with my quick summary of the NIST initation sequence ? Funny that. Any issue with my three point summary, or not ? Come, come now. It's not difficult.

Try getting back on topic

Eeexcellent.

why is Major Tom's paper a failure

It isn't. It's showing the bizarre group-think of JREF though, don'cha'think ?

why does he mention CD in the conclusion

It makes the point that ROOSD itself does not prove, nor disprove MIHOP. As was pointed out within the very first few posts, it's intended audience is for both *debunkers* and *truthers*. Debunkers should (and some have) rightly stated that the gravity driven ROOSD mechanism is an accurate description of the primary mode of destruction, and hopefully some *truthers* will take the links to observables and stop focussing upon false notions of per-floor explosives.

So...

Anyone feel like being clear about the NIST initiation sequence ?

Any objection to...

1) South face failure, followed rapidly by...
2) South to North core and East/West perimeter failure, followed rapidly by...
3) North face failure.

 

[Major_Tom]

Exactly femr. We should be very, very clear so we don't make the same sloppy, incorrect claim that the NIST does about the angle of tilt.


For the overall collapse process I have been using a variation of the BZ 5 stage description:

Bazant and Zhao: 5 stages of tower collapse:

stage 1) Airplane damage, fire and fuel
Stage 2) Creep buckling
stage 3) Majority of columns lose strength, building starts to move downwards
stage 4) FIrst significant collision
stage 5) Collapse propagation


The collapse initiation sequence is in stages 2, 3 and 4.

..............................................

But I describe the stages a bit differently as:


stage 1) Airplane damage, fuel and fires

stage 2) Visible deformations leading into initial buckling sequence, especially inward bowing (IB) of the south face.

stage 3) Initial buckling sequence (initial lateral propagation of column failure and trajectory over the first 12 ft.

stage 4) Initial collision and resulting trajectory and behavior through subsequent collisions

stage 5) Runaway collapse propagation (ROOSD)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

We are most interested in the initial deformations and the collapse initiation process. These are in stages 2 and 3.

We are especially interested in the initial buckling sequence. As has been mentioned, the Bazant papers are not the places to look for a detailed study of the initial buckling sequence. For that we would look to the "meticulous investigation of unprecedented scope and detail, conducted by S. Shyam Sunder’s team at the National Institute of Standards and Technology".


But when we look to the NIST reports for information on the critical stage 3, which is the initial buckling sequence (initial lateral propagation of column failure and trajectory over the first 12 ft., we can't find squat.

In fact, they clearly do not understand that all columns failed before either the north wall or the antenna had tilted just one degree. They certainly seem to believe that top tilted a whopping 8 degrees or more while the initial column buckling progressed from south to north.

Dave doesn't agree that the NIST is incorrect because according to him, they are so unclear on the subject that he can't even make out what they actually mean. To him it isn't even clear why the NIST keeps referring to an 8 degree tilt.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I want to present a way to describe the WTC1 early deformation and initial column failure sequence so clearly that we don't make the same mistakes as the NIST. This way we will be able to see how quickly the rate of column failure must have progressed from south to north.

 

[Major_Tom]

Femr writes:

"1) South face failure, followed rapidly by...
2) South to North core and East/West perimeter failure, followed rapidly by...
3) North face failure."

That is the official version of the sequence of failure events for WTC1 and 2. In that order.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In their own words:

1-6D, p 312:

"Table 5–1. Summary of main events that led to the collapse of WTC 1.
Event Number........ Event
1 .......................Aircraft impact
2 .......................Unloading of core
3 .......................Sagging of floors and floor/wall disconnections
4........................Bowing of the south wall
5 .......................Buckling of south wall and collapse initiation"




1-6D, pg 314:

"Bowing of South Wall

The exterior columns on the south wall bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures, pull-in forces from the floors beginning at 80 min, and additional gravity loads redistributed from the core. Figure 5–6 shows the observed and the estimated inward bowing of the south wall at 97 min after impact (10:23 a.m.). Since no bowing was observed on the south wall at 69 min (9:55 a.m.), as shown in Table 5–2, it is estimated that the south wall began to bow inward at around 80 min when the floors on the south side began to substantially sag. The inward bowing of the south wall increased with time due to continuing floor sagging and increased temperatures on the south wall as shown in Figs. 4–42 and 5–7. At 97 min (10:23 a.m.), the maximum bowing observed was about 55 in. (see Fig. 5–6).


Buckling of South Wall and Collapse Initiation

With continuously increased bowing, as more columns buckled, the entire width of the south wall buckled inward. Instability started at the center of the south wall and rapidly progressed horizontally toward the sides. As a result of the buckling of the south wall, the south wall significantly unloaded (Fig. 5–3), redistributing its load to the softened core through the hat truss and to the south side of the east and west walls through the spandrels. The onset of this load redistribution can be found in the total column loads in the WTC 1 global model at 100 min in the bottom line of Table 5–3. At 100 min, the north, east, and west walls at Floor 98 carried about 7 percent, 35 percent, and 30 percent more gravity loads than the state after impact, and the south wall and the core carried about 7 percent and 20 percent less loads, respectively. The section of the building above the impact zone tilted to the south (observed at about 8°, Table 5–2) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall along the adjacent east and west walls (see Fig. 5–8), resulting in increased gravity load on the core columns. The release of potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Basically, they are saying that the OOS south area floors sagged so badly it pulled in and destabilized the south wall. Then, apparently, the whole core gets pulled down as the top portion tilts 8 degrees or less than 1 degree, nobody seems to know which.

 

[beachnut]

...

Eeexcellent.


It isn't. It's showing the bizarre group-think of JREF though, don'cha'think ?


It makes the point that ROOSD itself does not prove, nor disprove MIHOP. As was pointed out within the very first few posts, it's intended audience is for both *debunkers* and *truthers*. Debunkers should (and some have) rightly stated that the gravity driven ROOSD mechanism is an accurate description of the primary mode of destruction, and hopefully some *truthers* will take the links to observables and stop focussing upon false notions of per-floor explosives.

So...

Anyone feel like being clear about the NIST initiation sequence ?

Any objection to...

1) South face failure, followed rapidly by...
2) South to North core and East/West perimeter failure, followed rapidly by...
3) North face failure.

Repetition of your failed attack on NIST continues to be off topic smoke screen to cover the fact Major Tom's paper is a failure for the CD he supports. (even it it is one floor of insane thermite by Jones)

You want to say the gravity collapse was started by CD, but you have no evidence. At least your support of a gravity collapse makes CD not necessary; infact the paper by Major Tom proves no CD. And Major Tom used all the evidence he has on 911 to prove no CD.

You continue to attack NIST initiation so you can back in CD without evidence like Jones' insane thermite initiation. Failure comes in many forms for 911 truth and your "group think CD delusion" experts are persistent as you make up lies to support your fuzzy paranoid conspiracy theories you can't define or explain due to lack of evidence.

You think if you can make NIST's initiation ideas fail, you can back in CD? What about Heiwa's failed letter, why not support the moronic junk Heiwa does too as you support the failed paper of Major Tom with tangential nonsense of backing CD by negating NIST collapse initiation?

You failed; what do you do now that you can't make progress after 8 years? I don't care if you want explosives on every floor, or only on one floor, there were no explosives used on 911 to cause collapse of the WTC; impacts and fires destroyed the WTC towers. Fire and building damage caused WTC7 collapse.

Take your CD junk back to your forums of delusions and avoid being ripped up at skeptic forum due to lack of evidence and pushing nonsense.

You have no point, your post are complete nonsense and I have an engineering degree but a layperson can express your failure much better than I. I took engineering so I could see fraud like you and Major Tom produce after a quick glance. You guys are frauds trying to back in CD with no evidence.

You guys failed to refute NIST; NIST offered you guys a chance to take them on and you all FAILED. The failure of 911 truth is public record, a record of shame and ignorant ideas made up out of desperation to support paranoid ideas of conspiracy theories on 911 and you and Major Tom have no substance to make a single point about your opinions made up from nothing but hearsay, lies and idiotic delusions.

I am baby sitting, I don't have time to turn my failed writing into a master piece of concise perfections;

You and Major Tom failed to prove CD. Tom's latest paper has not changed that fact. You will never prove CD. You will attack NIST out of ignorance and the need to support your failed paranoid conspiracies on 911; which you can't define. I am right, you and Major Tom are wrong. Nothing you can do until you agree with me will make your ideas right. You support lies, I don't.

If unassisted ROOSD is possible, is this proof that the collapses were natural?

Not at all. It means that in the WTC1, 2 design a runaway destruction potential has always existed in the OOS spaces completely surrounding the cores which a demolition team can exploit by setting up sufficient initial conditions higher in the towers.

With this nonsense in the paper, Major Tom continues to craft his delusions on 911 trying to fake some engineering by making up some new terms. Now what do you do about all the other papers and work on the WTC; I don't need to go to NIST to know the impacts on 911 and the fires destroyed the WTC. There are many independent studies which support what happen; why do you and Major Tom support the CD delusion?

 

[femr2]

Repetition of your failed attack on NIST

In what delusional world that you live in does asking whether anyone has any issues with repeating the NIST initiation sequence result in you interpreting such as an attack on NIST ?

Do you agree with the very simple three-step initation sequence, or not ?

It's a very simple question beachnut.

continues to be off topic smoke screen to cover the fact Major Tom's paper is a failure for the CD he supports.

In what sense do you reject the mechanism of ROOSD ? Be clear beachnut. Are you saying that the mechanism termed ROOSD is NOT what actually happened ? If so, what ARE you saying was the post-initiation mechanism for destruction of the OOS flooring and perimeter ?

(even it it is one floor of insane thermite by Jones)

Remember to breathe beachnut. That makes no sense at all. Nonsense.

You want to say the gravity collapse was started by CD, but you have no evidence.

The study makes it clear that it neither proves, nor disproves MIHOP. It simply matches to observables to describe a gravity driven mechanism which fits. Do you have an issue with that ?

At least your support of a gravity collapse makes CD not necessary; infact the paper by Major Tom proves no CD.

No, beachnut, again, it neither proves nor disproves MIHOP.

You continue to attack NIST initiation

Nope. They did a pretty poor job after aaaaaaaallll that effort mind

so you can back in CD without evidence

You know, for someone who has *delusional* on a one-hit keystroke, you sure do seem to suffer from such much more than many folk I've encountered. Bizarre. If the *truth* is no CD, fine, great, excellent. I'm afraid I still have issues with numerous observables, and the NIST report has most certainly not answered some of my questions. If you choose to attack me for that, fine, but without engaging in the detailed discussion of lower and lower level events that concern me I'm afraid I'll simply have to laugh you off. You're not helping. You're making yourself look like a ****.

Take your CD junk back to your forums of delusions and avoid being ripped up at skeptic forum due to lack of evidence and pushing nonsense.

No. Deal with my requests and rip me up. Go ahead. Quite happy to learn from superior and fully explained knowledge. Certainly nothing from you has ever been worthwhile reading. lol.

You have no point, your post are complete nonsense and I have an engineering degree but a layperson can express your failure much better than I. I took engineering so I could see fraud like you and Major Tom produce after a quick glance. You guys are frauds trying to back in CD with no evidence.

Answer the question beachnut...

Anyone feel like being clear about the NIST initiation sequence ?

Any objection to...

1) South face failure, followed rapidly by...
2) South to North core and East/West perimeter failure, followed rapidly by...
3) North face failure.

NIST offered you guys a chance to take them on and you all FAILED.

That's quite funny. NIST were engaging in quite reasonable discussion with me until I pointed out that at the point in time where they state WTC 7 experienced a couple-o seconds of (near) freefall that their model had roughly two thirds of the internal core columns intact. I pointed out the contradiction, and they terminated discussions. Not wonderfully impressed.

Get a grip beachnut.

 

[Seymour Butz]

That's quite funny. NIST were engaging in quite reasonable discussion with me until I pointed out that at the point in time where they state WTC 7 experienced a couple-o seconds of (near) freefall that their model had roughly two thirds of the internal core columns intact. I pointed out the contradiction, and they terminated discussions. Not wonderfully impressed.

Probably cuz they recognized you as a loon.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf

Fig 3-13 - Buckling of all interior columns at 6.5 sec following the initiation of collapse.

Fig 3-14 - buckling of the lower exterior columns within 1 sec of Fig 3-13.

Table 3-1 - time reference 0 = start of east penthouse descent.
time reference 6.9 = initial movement of the north face roofline



Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if at 6.5 sec, they say that all the interior columns have buckled, and the freefall is at least 1.75 sec after this, then you are either woefully wrong, or lying.

Which is it?

 

[Seymour Butz]

Femr writes:
Basically, they are saying that the OOS south area floors sagged so badly it pulled in and destabilized the south wall.

That's not all that they say that destabilized the south wall.

What did they say about increased loads?

And what effect will viscoplastic buckling have at those increased loads and temps over that time period?

 

[femr2]

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if at 6.5 sec, they say that all the interior columns have buckled, and the freefall is at least 1.75 sec after this, then you are either woefully wrong, or lying.

Which is it?

Neither.

You need to correlate their model animation to their timings (specifically the point in time at which movement of the NW corner begins. They do love messing around with t0 do NIST. lol)

I'll show you on a separate thread when I can be bothered if you haven't done the leg work by yourself by then. By all means do the leg work though. I'm not going bother arguing the point with you until you've bothered to get your hands dirty. I imagine that's the last I'll hear about it, especially if you do actually go off and to the synch

 

[Seymour Butz]

Neither.

So, it's lying.

And now you're lying about your lying.

Are you sure you're not a Redibis alternate identity?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Neither.

You need to correlate their model animation to their timings (specifically the point in time at which movement of the NW corner begins. They do love messing around with t0 do NIST. lol)

I'll show you on a separate thread when I can be bothered if you haven't done the leg work by yourself by then. By all means do the leg work though. I'm not going bother arguing the point with you until you've bothered to get your hands dirty. I imagine that's the last I'll hear about it, especially if you do actually go off and to the synch

Fascinating, even if we assume you (completely unqualified) are right and Bazant and NIST (both supremely qualified) are wrong.....so what?

You think the building would suffer runaway collapse after initiation, so do we.
OK we all agree? now the only thing left is how that was initiated.
Please let us know how you think it was done and then provide proof that it was done as you assert.

Stop ranting on about irrelevancies and get to the point.

 

[femr2]

You think the building would suffer runaway collapse after initiation, so do we.

Fine.

OK we all agree?

I'd hope so. Really odd that quite a lot of JREF locals seem disinclined to do so though, innit.

now the only thing left is how that was initiated.

Seems a good place to focus upon.

Please let us know how you think it was done and then provide proof that it was done as you assert.

If I had decent answers to specific questions, I wouldn't need to ask 'em now, would I ?

Sooo...

Anyone feel like being clear about the NIST initiation sequence ?

Any objection to...

1) South face failure, followed rapidly by...
2) South to North core and East/West perimeter failure, followed rapidly by...
3) North face failure.

Okay, or not okay ?

 

[Seymour Butz]

Stop ranting on about irrelevancies and get to the point.

Oh lay off the little fella.

No truther can do engineering. We all know that. They get their engineering from you tube university.

This is why the best they can do is complain about how the animation doesn't look right, rather than attacking the real engineering.

Like say:

1- using their own FDI/FDS studies to determine whether or not NIST got the fire spread/timing and fuel loads correct.

2- doing a heat transfer study with the reported fire insulation on the beam/girder that NIST id'ed as the problem, and determining whether or not the beam/girder indeed would have been pushed off due to thermal expansion.

3- doing a study on whether or not such a long unsupported span of column 79 would indeed have buckled

4- .......... you get the picture


Real engineering must be avoided at all costs. It's a much better use of their time to sit counting pixels on a computer monitor.....

 

[femr2]

the best they can do is complain about how the animation doesn't look right

I've already done the leg-work, and am not at all surprised you're not going to bother. Let's you sit happy saying *I'm lying* rather than prove to yourself that I'm not. Whatever, ROOSD applies to WTC 1/2 not 7, so you're off topic. Do the leg-work, start a new thread and then you can complain.

In the meantime....

Almost nothing at all from the JREF locals.

No-one is even prepared to state whether they agree with the summary of the NIST initiation sequence, let alone respond to MT's points ?

Bizarre.

I can only imagine that you have such a lack of confidence in the correctness of the sequence that you don't want to associate your name with it. Not a great show of support for NIST eh. Hmm.

1) South face failure, followed rapidly by...
2) South to North core and East/West perimeter failure, followed rapidly by...
3) North face failure.

If not as above....then what ?

 

[ProBonoShill]

I've already done the leg-work, and am not at all surprised you're not going to bother. Let's you sit happy saying *I'm lying* rather than prove to yourself that I'm not. Whatever, ROOSD applies to WTC 1/2 not 7, so you're off topic. Do the leg-work, start a new thread and then you can complain.

>>>>>>>>>SNIP

You have? Where is it? Did you use the same frame of reference as NIST?

 

[beachnut]

... That's quite funny. NIST were engaging in quite reasonable discussion with me until I pointed out that at the point in time where they state WTC 7 experienced a couple-o seconds of (near) freefall that their model had roughly two thirds of the internal core columns intact. I pointed out the contradiction, and they terminated discussions. Not wonderfully impressed.

Get a grip beachnut.

911 truth, all the work done by 911 truth on issues like this lack engineering skills. 911 truth needs to get an education so they don't fall for the shoddy delusional work by you and Major Tom. Like Heiwa, your work and Major Tom's latest paper are garbage. That is a fact; go ask any engineering professor not in the 911 truth club house of delusions on 911.

I don't have to get a grip, you got to get new material; 8 years of failure validates my assessment of your failure. I have worked on engineering projects for over 37 years and never seen such nonsense; and you tell me to get a grip? lol; my grandkids have a better grip on reality than you do if we use your work as an indicator.

NIST terminated discuss because you were pushing delusional opinions based on moronic opinions. lol, you are funny; you don't you know your delusional CD ideas are nonsense? I am tell you what the NIST engineers want to say but they are polite! They are being nice. You think you are right when people politely avoid your lunatic ideas when they "terminate the discussion". They want to tell you your ideas are poppycock but they are being polite! They want to tell you your ideas are insane, but they are being personable. They are being like Jones, nice and personable, and you are being like me persistently pushing an idea. But for me, my idea is correct, your idea is formed from a morass of moronic lies and hearsay based on paranoid faulty opinions.

You now have distilled thousand of pages into your own what NIST said statement. Now you can move on to prove in your own mind your paranoid CD is real; but only in your mind.

Wow, NIST terminated discussion with you because you have nothing to prove because your work appears to suffer from no practical understanding of engineering, physics, math, and fire science. I would not brag about how you beat NIST when they terminated discussion with you. If you want to prove your idiotic CD theories you need evidence and your faulty opinions are not evidence.

The paper by Major Tom has failed and will not be publish except in Jones' insane journal for delusions on 911. That is all you have after an excess of 8 years of moronic tripe supported by nothing but your paranoid conspiracy tendencies. Did you get Watergate right? Can't wait for your ideas on the Pentagon, and Flight 93 impact. Laypeople can see the failure of Major Tom and your ideas; why can't you?

No, beachnut, again, it neither proves nor disproves MIHOP.

Using Major Tom's paper and all the evidence! Major Tom's paper proves a gravity collapse. I paid attention in engineering school. I can use Major Tom's paper, correct the errors add the reality based evidence not the failed opinions used by you and Major Tom, use differential equations and it proves no MIHOP! 19 terrorists did it, the 19 terrorists you apologize for poorly MIHOP! Fact you can't grasp - and they did it on their own using a trick. What did you and Major Tom do in engineering school? lol
It is called engineering; when will you do some? What you do is called delusional conspiracy theories any layperson can shred by using evidence.

 

[beachnut]

...
No. Deal with my requests and rip me up. Go ahead. Quite happy to learn from superior and fully explained knowledge. Certainly nothing from you has ever been worthwhile reading. lol.
...

Get a grip beachnut.

What have you done that is not self-debunking? What have you done that is worth reading from an engineering stand point?

Go publish your work in a real journal and prove me wrong. You can't because your work and Major Tom's paper are nonsense. But go ahead make my year; Heiwa's letter was published in a real journal and he was exposed as a fraud; it is official. Can you do better? Can Major Tom?

I am going to get a grip on the garden tools and plant some more green stuff; you have good advice but I have to adjust your target and goals. I can use your work to prove gravity collapse too; all I have to do is correct your errors. You have a strong grip on fantasy based paranoid conspiracy theories based on your own delusional opinions. And for you I need to get a grip.

 

[Seymour Butz]

I've already done the leg-work,

Damn, who knew that Bud Light burned so bad when expelled through one's nostrils.....

You haven't done any leg work, son.

Just a 2 minute examination of the animation shows me that the LSDYNA used for it comes from something other than the real study, and most likely from the fire/no impact damage study.

Look closely at the LSDYNA closeup figs for the study with fire/impact damage. They don't match the animation. And when you look at the fig that has the view from the west/exterior, it's plain as day that the left side - the north side, and the side seen in videos - isn't all folded up excessively, but rather shows a slight crease. Just like reality.

Now, I'd say that you have a legitimate gripe as to why NIST didn't use the correct one for the animation. But again, it just proves that you, nor any other truther has any engineering ability, since you avoid any engineering arguments. It also explains why you tube is your only source of info.

 

[femr2]

NIST terminated discuss because you were pushing delusional opinions based on moronic opinions.

Nope. They terminated it because I asked them why their freefall timing coincided with 2/3rds of the core intact in their model animations...a point which Seymour Butz just noticed with literally a couple of minutes of *leg work*. Regardless, this is not a discussion about WTC 7.

you are funny

Awww. Thanks. Knew you'd come around in the end

You now have distilled thousand of pages into your own what NIST said statement.

Nope. MT included the relevant full-text above. Did you not notice ? Hmm.

Any objection to...

1) South face failure, followed rapidly by...
2) South to North core and East/West perimeter failure, followed rapidly by...
3) North face failure.

Okay, or not okay ? If not okay, why not ?

The paper by Major Tom has failed

Major Tom's paper proves a gravity collapse

Which is it eh ? Make your mind up.

I can use Major Tom's paper, correct the errors

Go ahead...be specific though. I'm sure MT has no problem addressing legitimate errors.

15 pages of JREF *denial* and no progress yet...hmmm.