Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Well, I suppose it's a nice change to be called a big sheep.
Dave
Dave
OOS Collapse Propagation Model
- Thread starter Major_Tom
- Start date
- Status
Would tend to imply rough idea of impact locations.
Sod's Law that floors most recently upgraded with new fire protection just happened to be right in the firing line, with that very fire protection being basically, er, blamed for the subsequent demise of both buildings.
Bit of a bummer that the recently renovated chunk of the Pentagon also bit the dust.
Pretty sneaky huh
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
The reference in Dr G's suggestion cites See NIST NCSTAR 1-6A page xxxvii.
NIST NCSTAR 1-6A page xxxvii said:
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Now compare the numbers for WTC2. Only one of the floors upgraded with new fire protection was hit, and that only by the wingtip of the plane. And, in case you wanted to suggest that the upgraded floors were "upgraded" with incendiaries, let me remind you of the classic truther talking point that floor 78 of WTC2 showed only "a couple of isolated pockets of fire".
In short, your comment that "floors most recently upgraded with new fire protection just happened to be right in the firing line" is flat out wrong for WTC2.
Dave
ETA: How dense does one have to be not to see what my point was even after he's posted the numbers that prove it?
Last edited:
Aiii. Bang on for WTC1, not great for WTC2, which oddly enough failed along quite a vertical diagonal.
That's the basic premise of the (lighthearted) Dr G. scenario, clearly.
Are you suggesting that there was no heat source on 78 high enough to cause initiation ?
Meh. Pretty close. Kinda sandwiched in between two upgraded regions.
Methinks thou doth protest too much
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
...Methinks thou doth protest too much
Sorry about that lot femr2. I must remember to not make light hearted comments on this forum.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Bang on for WTC1, completely wrong for WTC2.
I'm pointing out that the fires were relatively small on the one upgraded floor in the impact region of WTC2, indicating that there was no particular correlation between (a) the impact zones and the upgraded floors, and (b) the fires and the upgraded zones. Therefore, any explanation derived from any such correlation is obviously worthless.
Saving the hypothesis. Methinks thou doth protest too much.
Dave
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Sorry about that lot femr2. I must remember to not make light hearted comments on this forum.
Is there a problem with me correcting false statements? If so, I'd better not add that it was the junction between a renovated and a non-renovated wedge of the Pentagon that was hit, not "the recently renovated chunk".
Whoops. Sorry, that just slipped out.
Dave
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
And you have evidence that the "upgraded" fireproofing would have survived intact after being hit by a 767?
still counting dancing angels.......
Just publish will you!
Nope, though the renovation adds a) nullification of fireproofing ageing as a significant factor or b) possibly shoddy renovation... to the pot
Nope.
Publish what ?
Oh I think the aircraft being sandwiched between two regions of upgrades is still pretty much in the firing line, speshly seeing as fire tends to rise
No high heat source on 78. Cool.
Bang on for WTC1. Aircraft fire sandwich correlation for WTC2
Bang on for WTC1. WTC2... No fire below 78 either ?, cool. Nor above ?, even cooler.
Is that so ? Cool.
Bang on for WTC1, sandwich for WTC2. S'nice
Not protesting at all. Chill
Oh I don't know, it's quite revealing.ozeco41 said:
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Oh I think the aircraft being sandwiched between two regions of upgrades is still pretty much in the firing line, speshly seeing as fire tends to rise
So, let's see which impact floors would have been suspicious. If AA11 had hit WTC1 anywhere between 87-92 and 102-107, that would qualify as suspicious, because at least one of the upgraded floors would be "right in the firing line". But you've also said the WTC2 impact was suspicious because the impact zone was four floors below an upgraded section and fire tends to rise, so AA77 could have hit as low as 83-88 and that would still be suspicious. So we've got a range of suspicion of 19 floors for WTC1. For WTC2, by the same argument, anywhere from 67-73 (4 floors below 77 and 78) to 97-103 is suspicious, a range of 30 floors.
You're getting this Texas Sharpshooter thing wrong. You're supposed to draw small rings round the bullet holes. Yours are covering nearly a quarter of the side of the barn.
If you're claiming that there was no fire above floor 78 in WTC2, then you're lying.
Dave
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
You can say that again.Oh I don't know, it's quite revealing.Sorry about that lot femr2. I must remember to not make light hearted comments on this forum.
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,715
I would imagine that's pretty high on the list.
I find it pretty bizarre how many folk *attack* the ROOSD study.
With more, er, rational members there's no reason why the initial study couldn't have been rounded-off a little, the actual math implemented, etc etc.
I'm inclined to surmise that many members have zero interest in anything except *arguing* with anyone they self-brand as *twoofers*, which is pretty pathetic, and in a public forum results in a permanent reflection of members, er, qualities...till the end of time
Anyway, yes, general agreement that ROOSD is a pretty sensible route to refining and parameterising the primary mechanisms of destruction.
Acceptance of the scope and applicability of Bazant et al (which is the primary *tome* for all response to questions about descent progression),,,ie that is shouldn't be used at all except to agree that there was enough energy available (imo)...that ol' it proves it could, but does it prove it did kind of thing.
However, a main purpose AFAIK...
Get RID of all the crap arguments involving wild theories of floor-by-floor nuke-a-booms, providing both *sides* (debunker/AE911T/whatever) with an acceptable middle-ground.
One side continually citing Bazant, whilst the other points to missing jolts and 12 features of CD...blah. Waste of time.
Doubt there will be much progress here. Most of the folk are too blinkered.
Femr.
As I have stated repeatedly. I have no direct objections to the observables that Major T has outlined in his OOSD theory. They seem to match up with what was said by FEMA, and his observations seem to match what we saw.
my only issues are
1. the lack of math to back up some of the claims.
2. The fact that demolitions are not mentioned at any time until the conclusion as an attempt to "back" in a demolitions theory that isn't needed.
Noted.
The model outline does need to be implemented, yes.
As I've said a few times, I'm not sure the inclusion has helped matters, but the base point of the inclusion, imo, is simply to highlight that ROOSD does not prove MIHOP, nor does it disprove MIHOP. It simply describes a gravity driven primary mode of destruction. ROOSD is post-initiation, leaving initiation as a blank space. Indeed the biggest remaining hurdle with validating ROOSD in full is determining the sequence of events leading to the initiating state, ie how enough mass became separated from the structure to invoke ROOSD. The study is offered to both *sides* with the intention of reducing spurious claims of floor-by-floor nuke-a-booms on one hand and focus on initiation on the other. A significant issue with initiating scenarios such as that proposed by NIST is that such does not provide a mechanism for supply of that mass early enough.
Detailed thoughts on that last point very welcome.
But the concept of ROOSD is a double-edged sword. It could be used in a remarkably controlled fashion intentionally. This is obvious.
The collapses of WTC1 and 2 have looked like total chaos for years. This study shows there was remarkable order and control within the apparent chaos.
The ROOSD process is naturally self-regulating, as the charts showing early terminal velocity demonstrate. It is a remarkably controlled and controllable. self regulating process leading to highly predictable results.
That is why I say, ROOSD information cuts both ways and changes many parameters in our "debate".
The collapses of WTC1 and 2 have looked like total chaos for years. This study shows there was remarkable order and control within the apparent chaos.
The ROOSD process is naturally self-regulating, as the charts showing early terminal velocity demonstrate. It is a remarkably controlled and controllable. self regulating process leading to highly predictable results.
That is why I say, ROOSD information cuts both ways and changes many parameters in our "debate".
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
So you produced a "model" that would leave as many openings as possible so you could connect it to your "preferred" conclusion.
Big freaking surprise.
- Status