Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

[ergo]

2. Do you really think that the majority of the worlds engineers and scientists would have missed what you believe are obvious errors and you somehow managed to figure it out?

Obviously, this majority you imagine haven't actually read Bazant's papers, have they?

 

[ozeco41]

U

Easily dismissed by who? ...

Yes ... maybe I should have inserted a qualifier such as "relatively easily dismissed...."

...I am still debating people who sustain that the dust clouds and the 500 ft reached by the perimeter panels could only be the result of explosives....

...funny actually. I used to try to turn the tables by asking "How do you use explosives to throw heavy steel 5-600 feet?"

 

[tsig]

Pgimeno post 1551: "Indeed, that's the case as things stand now. They're conjectures unsupported by facts, =zero scientific merit."


Perhaps you haven't noticed that you have no collapse initiation theory for WTC1 left. It is you that are left with poor conjectures, not me.

While you were arguing for over 20 pages about NIST's comments about 8 degrees of tilt, You were effectively admitting that the only collapse initiation scenario that the NIST gives for WTC1 is scant of any details and basically illegible.

You have about 6 or 7 NIST quotes that comprise your entire WTC1 collapse initiation theory, no more, and you claim that some of the quotes are confusing.


You see? No BV, no BL, no BLGB and no collapse initiation theory.

That leaves you with nothing. No scientific "proof", and your twin authority figures have nothing more to offer.

(Unless they invent a new theory fast. But it is too late for that.)


Once you realize this, a real debate about the possibility of demolition can begin in earnest.

First loose the gurus, then we can talk.

(Drop all the propaganda, then we can have an honest debate for the first time.)

To be fair to JREF, the same complaints extend equally to AE911T and the Scholars groups. Drop the crap, then we can talk in earnest. This way everyone can talk, not just you. No insult intended to any individual member of these groups, but the features lists on the OPs of your websites are incorrect for the most part. Your base claims are in need of serious revision.

You seem to be talking quite freely right now so what do you think caused the towers to fall?

 

[Major_Tom]

My debate strategy is pretty clear. I have been following this general pattern:



a) First, Introduce a correct collapse propagation theory. Clear up many misunderstandings of all parties in the "debate". Misunderstandings by AE911T, by many regular JREF posters, by STJ911, by Bazant.

Knowledge and observation of the ROOSD process allow us to be specific when "debating" unlike any time previously.

Both self-proclaimed "debunkers" and "truthers" have helped spread many tall tales. The current atmosphere is thick with poor interpretation of photographic evidence. "The debate" is 95% hot air and fantasy. Knowledge of the ROOSD process destroys many of those illusions, allowing us to talk about specific features of collapse with a common underlying understanding for the first time.



b) Second, destroy the most common illusions that put a stranglehold on true, honest debate. For regular posters at JREF, this illusion is that some accepted authority has provided convincing answers to the demolition question.

The heart of this belief in such scientific authority is an attachment to the claims of "proof" by Dr Bazant and the NIST. Many posters are convinced that mechanisms of collapse of all three towers have been identified.

This is totally untrue. The collapses of all three towers remain a total mystery, and no scientific authority has come close to solving or explaining the mystery.


This is a fact that many here will fight to deny: The true causes for the collapses of all 3 towers remains unknown. In reality, the NIST was not able to identify the causes of any of the collapses.

No mechanism of collapse has yet been correctly identified


Speaking of illusions, to be fair, many claims by 9/11 truth groups are verifiably incorrect and these illusions must also be destroyed. The researchers that I feel have contributed most to 9/11 resreach have been largely ignored by the mainstream 9/11 truth movement. This is because many false claims have been made by AE911T, for example, and the researchers mentioned can probably call their bluff on those false claims. Unfortunately, the tendency of AE911T, for example, has been to shelter itself from honest debate with other truthers such as myself. Not healthy.



c) Once illusions have lost their power to dominate the scope of the "debate", and people overcome the tendency to cite abstract authority as decisive "proof", Free of the stranglehold of illusions, we will debate collapse features more clearly and specifically, maybe for the first time.


All features worth considering will be presented as comprehensive lists of information. We will find that a knowledge of the ROOSD process will give us a much better ability to see the collapse processes as a whole. We will also notice that many subtle features are seemingly inexplicable even with a knowledge of ROOSD.

From my experience, the more I have studied subtle features of the initiation processes and collapses, the more mysterious the events become.

There are many curious features that most people have not noticed about the actual events, mainly because they are looking for big bombs, or tons and tons of TNT, or space beams, or nukes......or pyroclastic clouds, or rivers and streams of molten metal....

If you know about the possibility of a ROOSD process, then you have a great advantage in knowing where to look for curious features of the collapses of WTC1 and 2. It's a great help. There are certain areas that cause natural discontinuities for the ROOSD process, like mechanical room floors, for example, that the observant researcher will want to study in detail.


In this thread I am working on part "b", destroying common illusions.

 

[newton3376]

Questions from Newton3376:

1. Do you think that NIST and Bazant are the only technical papers written on the collapses?

They are the heart of your scientific argument.

First of all my scientific argument is not "go read NIST and Bazant"...

You do realise that not everyone agrees with every single conclusion that NIST or Bazant came to, don't you?

What there IS consensus on in the scientific community is that the collapses could and DID occur without manmade explosives. That is the consensus.

Do you understand how difficult it is for ANYONE to completely model exactly every event that occured before or during collapse initiation or during the actual collpase itself?

This is a complex structure and there were likely things going on within that structure that we simply do not know and have not taken into account....in fact we may never completely understand every single detail of what was going on inside the structure that led to collapse initiation. We may never completely understand every single detail of what was going on inside the structure during the collapse either.

Even if Bazant and NIST are wrong on some of the details....so what?

I doubt many would call their reports completely incompetent as you have....and after seeing some of the errors you have made in rather simple calculations I think you have a long way to go before you can critique NIST or Bazant.

When you, femr, etc make such errors in mathematics and physics it makes it very difficult to take anything you say after that seriously. Especially when you are asking me to take your word for things....even here on this internet forum most of the claims you have made are questionable at best....and we have very few engineers/scientists that have relevant expertise that actually post here.

Even with such a small representation of the overall community of experts we have seen error after error of yours pointed out.

You need to do better to be convincing.

2. Do you really think that the majority of the worlds engineers and scientists would have missed what you believe are obvious errors and you somehow managed to figure it out?

I'm sure most haven't read it. Once the perimeter peeling and core survival are observed, the rest follows naturally. Many people probably didn't put the observations together.

Just about every person I mentioned suspects ROOSD in one way or another. It is not a controversial idea. I showed evidence of two of the authors discussing the same idea with me in 2008.

The question is of those who have read either report.....of those who have written their own reports and have discussed or debated the collapses with the community.....how many are conlcuding controlled demolition?

How many are calling NIST or Bazant incompetent?

How many are agreeing, not just some minor detail or issue you bring up, but with your overall argument or conclusions?

In my opinion I believe that you and femr both think of yourselves as much more competent in math/physics then you have shown here on this website.

The errors you have made causes me to be very skeptical of your arguments and conclusions.

This debate lies outside my area of expertise....I am an Electrical Engineer who does work in specific areas...so I am inclined to side with NIST, Bazant, Perdue, etc rather then you.

I am also inclined to side with posters like TFK, Newtons Bit, Mackey, and about a dozen others who have shown me time and time again that they are careful and accurate when doing math or physics.

I think you really do need to attempt to publish something..or perhaps send all of these arguments to someone at NIST or Bazant and see what kind of feedback you get.

 

[ergo]

What there IS consensus on in the scientific community is that the collapses could and DID occur without manmade explosives. That is the consensus.

If it's a scientific consensus, you'll have no problem citing sources for this claim.

The question is of those who have read either report.....of those who have written their own reports and have discussed or debated the collapses with the community.....how many are conlcuding controlled demolition?

How many are calling NIST or Bazant incompetent?

1,421 and counting. Where is your consensus?

I am also inclined to side with posters like TFK, Newtons Bit, Mackey, and about a dozen others who have shown me time and time again that they are careful and accurate when doing math or physics.

I'm an amateur too, but in my short time here I've discovered Newtons Bit doesn't know the difference between correlation and causation, and actually, neither does Ryan Mackey.

 

[Major_Tom]

Newton3376 post 1565: "What there IS consensus on in the scientific community is that the collapses could and DID occur without manmade explosives. That is the consensus."

Do you need any evidence for that? Or is just a strong belief enough?

 

[Myriad]

No mechanism of collapse has yet been correctly identified

And after forty pages (on this thread alone, plus other threads) we're back to the core argument from incredulity.

The caveman theory:

"Steel strong. Steel not break. Witch doctor do bad magic on steel, make steel break."

Not a surprise, but a disappointment, after all the posturing and pretense.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[newton3376]

If it's a scientific consensus, you'll have no problem citing sources for this claim.

If you want a listing of articles published on 9/11 that specifically did NOT list controlled demolition or a conspiracy then I suggest you use the search function.

1,421 and counting. Where is your consensus?

Silly argument similar to what we hear from Creationists of Intelligent Design Advocates.

Perhaps you should read what those "experts" actually write as their reasons for signing the petition. Your petition or "1,421" argument does not even deserve a reply it's such a nonargument.

I'm an amateur too, but in my short time here I've discovered Newtons Bit doesn't know the difference between correlation and causation, and actually, neither does Ryan Mackey.

Oh I didn't say I was an amateur...I said I was an Electrical Engineer....I am quite capable of fully understanding the math and physics I read when it comes to structural engineering, mechanical engineering, or ANY engineering.

I simply said it was not my specific area of expertise.

Newtons Bit and Ryan Mackey have done an excellent job from what I have seen in their writings. Like everyone, I'm sure they have made mistakes.....but I haven't seen huge conceptual or mathematical errors from either of them.

So I am inclined to trust their judgement over yours.

 

[newton3376]

Newton3376 post 1565: "What there IS consensus on in the scientific community is that the collapses could and DID occur without manmade explosives. That is the consensus."

Do you need any evidence for that? Or is just a strong belief enough?

The evidence is the articles that have bee written on the topic.

The evdiecen is the fact that the majority of experts think truthers are wrong at best and completely insane at worst.

So its not a belief....just an observation. Sorry if you don't like it....but the real experts disagree with you.

Perhaps you should listen to them.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If it's a scientific consensus, you'll have no problem citing sources for this claim.

In the hope of getting something useful out of an ergo thread, ISTR someone recently posted a long, long list of peer-reviewed publications analysing the WTC and Pentagon crashes and collapses - does anyone have a link to that post? It's pretty clear evidence for the consensus, though that won't make a shred of difference to anything ergo says.

Dave

 

[newton3376]

In the hope of getting something useful out of an ergo thread, ISTR someone recently posted a long, long list of peer-reviewed publications analysing the WTC and Pentagon crashes and collapses - does anyone have a link to that post? It's pretty clear evidence for the consensus, though that won't make a shred of difference to anything ergo says.

Dave

Original List:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4355078&postcount=165


Updated List:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4969965#post4969965


ETA:

Thanks to UnlovedRebel for the two lists.

 

[Seymour Butz]

And after forty pages (on this thread alone, plus other threads) we're back to the core argument from incredulity.

The caveman theory:

"Steel strong. Steel not break. Witch doctor do bad magic on steel, make steel break."

Not a surprise, but a disappointment, after all the posturing and pretense.

Respectfully,
Myriad

More like:

Bazant's limiting case doesn't accurately describe the actual events, therefore, everything that Bazant and NIST did must be thrown out:

1- forensic reconstruction of the structural damage done to the towers.
2- forensic reconstruction of the load redistribution as a result of the above.
3- forensic reconstruction of thermal insulation removal.
4- forensic reconstruction of fuel loads inside the towers.
5- forensic reconstruction of fire temps and spread.
6- forensic reconstruction of steel heating as a resut of those fires.
7- forensic reconstruction of load redistribution as a result of fire damage.

...... in the belief that the investigation is better carried out by counting pixels on a computer screen.

 

[femr2]

(off topic)

Original List:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4355078&postcount=165


Updated List:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4969965#post4969965


ETA:

Thanks to UnlovedRebel for the two lists.

Undoubtedly useful lists, though the reliance upon both NIST and Bazant in many, along with a definite focus upon progression rather than initiation.

Do you have details of which address specifics of initiation ?

In the hope of getting something useful out of an ergo thread

This is a pgimeno thread, focussed upon applicability of the bazant et al models to the real world. Thread title is a good indicator there.

Do you understand how difficult it is for ANYONE to completely model exactly every event that occured before or during collapse initiation or during the actual collpase itself?

Undoubtedly, and any improvement to existing suggestions should be welcomed, as should highlighting problems and errors with existing suggestions.

This debate lies outside my area of expertise....I am an Electrical Engineer who does work in specific areas...so I am inclined to side with NIST, Bazant, Perdue, etc rather then you.

Side with ? Even if they are wrong ?

It seems that, finally, some modicum of sense is beginning to prevail, with folk accepting limitations in the Bazant et al models (and spurious conclusions) along with the ability to openly state misgivings with the NIST reports.

I hope that continues, and all areas within such can be identified clarified, improved and corrected...the end result being a better understanding of the events in question (rather than *siding with* incorrect assertions based upon, what, peer pressure ?)
(end off topic)

 

[ProBonoShill]

Original List:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4355078&postcount=165


Updated List:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4969965#post4969965


ETA:

Thanks to UnlovedRebel for the two lists.

I checked both lists carefully, I didn't see Major Tom's paper there anywhere.

Maybe Ergo can find it for me.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Do you have details of which address specifics of initiation ?

50 pages of woo about propagation to finally get the statement out of MT that initiation is the only important thing.


They are 2 separate things. Why the woo? Nobody here is fooled into thinking that both must be thrown out cuz of ROOSD being the better explanation of the actual collapses, instead of Bazant's limiting case/crush up down/ rubble layer C.

There's a lot of forensic reconstruction that twoof idiots could have done by now if they think the NIST is wrong. Most that I listed above could be reasonably carried out by any twooftard with the inclination to do so.

Instead, we get ****** **** ******* questions."

Edited by Locknar: 

Sophistry edited, breach of rule 0.

 

[alienentity]

My debate strategy is pretty clear. I have been following this general pattern:




Both self-proclaimed "debunkers" and "truthers" have helped spread many tall tales. The current atmosphere is thick with poor interpretation of photographic evidence. "The debate" is 95% hot air and fantasy.

Wow. Those are some very bold claims! Perhaps you can appreciate if I'm skeptical that these are accurate observations, and that I'd prefer to see you publish your full research so we can refer to it accurately.

At the moment it's nothing but a list of bare assertions, I'm afraid.

Knowledge of the ROOSD process destroys many of those illusions, allowing us to talk about specific features of collapse with a common underlying understanding for the first time.

Again, this is an extremely bold claim; you're essentially declaring 'everything else you've heard is an illusion, this is the only correct interpretation'
I'd feel much more confident about your proposals if you'd at the very least had them fully peer-reviewed and published first.
I'd really like to see all your engineering models, see a full disclosure of the mathematics, and have it correlated with the forensic evidence that was catalogued.

b) Second, destroy the most common illusions that put a stranglehold on true, honest debate. For regular posters at JREF, this illusion is that some accepted authority has provided convincing answers to the demolition question.

You're getting into more subjective areas here. 'Convincing answers' is vague. The commonly held belief by many JREF regulars is that the plane impacts and fires lead to the destruction of the towers.

Are you implying that you disagree with this opinion? If so, you should focus on that disagreement. Because you have a lot of convincing to do in that case..

Many posters are convinced that mechanisms of collapse of all three towers have been identified.

This is totally untrue. The collapses of all three towers remain a total mystery, and no scientific authority has come close to solving or explaining the mystery.

This is getting silly M_T. Please, have a little respect for basic intelligence. Are you really this arrogant?

Look, I'm trying to give you some benefit of the doubt here, but it's impossible to take you seriously when you come out with something like this. Let me explain: in as many words you're declaring that all the explanations (but yours, presumably) are completely false. You used the terms 'Totally untrue', 'total mystery' etc.. you seem to have appointed yourself as the grand arbiter of what is known and what is not known.

ETA: 'total mystery' means that absolutely nothing is understood or known. Taken at face value, this is a false statement. Much is known, not all is understood. If these false ideas form your basic thesis, then you've already failed.

Excuse me if I decline to indulge you in such megalomania....sorry dude, but I call it like I see it.

I'll respond to one other thing:

The true causes for the collapses of all 3 towers remains unknown. In reality, the NIST was not able to identify the causes of any of the collapses.

You will never be able to support that statement, it's far too broad and general, and it's actually false. 'Causes' is plural, and there were multiple causes, and not just the NIST but others have indeed identified many of them.

Your statement as it stands is false and hurts your credibility. Your overreach is fairly obvious, but I suspect your Napoleonic viewpoint will prevent you from perceiving this.

That's all I have to say.

 

[newton3376]

(off topic)


Undoubtedly useful lists, though the reliance upon both NIST and Bazant in many, along with a definite focus upon progression rather than initiation.

Do you have details of which address specifics of initiation ?

Most deal with progression....I'm not sure if any of them deal with initiation in the detail you are looking for.

But this should not be a surprise since NIST published a very comprehensive report that dealt with that very topic.

Even if NIST made errors or does not have an exact model (and no one was claiming the NIST model was perfect or answered every single specific) it currently is the most comprehensive study to date.

Undoubtedly, and any improvement to existing suggestions should be welcomed, as should highlighting problems and errors with existing suggestions.

Sure...but if your goal is to point out that the NIST model might not be exactly what happened then I fail to see the point.

We all already knew that not everyone agreed with NIST on every detail.

Of course, they didn't conclude controlled demolition either...and we already knew that too.

You seem to minor in the majors and major in the minors femr.

Side with ? Even if they are wrong ?

Once again you are missing the point....

I agree with their GENERAL conclusions...the actual specifics I will let the experts debate amongst themselves. Neither you or MT are those experts. In fact, you have shown quite clearly that you are NOT experts by your past errors. So given a choice between you/MT and Bazant/NIST I will of course give more weight to what Bazant and NIST have to say.

I don't think anyone doubts that Bazant or NIST are likely wrong on some of the specifics...this is a complex problem and I don't think anyone fully understands the initiation or progression. The best we can do is try to describe it and model it the best we can and accept the general conclusions of the best theory that we currently have.

The specifics might never be known.....but neither NIST nor Bazant claimed to have nailed down every specific without question. They made the best models and gave the best explanations they could within the scope of what they were attempting to explain.

So it's more about what is more probable then who is "right" and who is "wrong". And so far you have not done a very good job of showing that the general conclusions of NIST or Bazant are improbable. You have also not given me an alternate explanation that is more probable.

(It seems that, finally, some modicum of sense is beginning to prevail, with folk accepting limitations in the Bazant et al models (and spurious conclusions) along with the ability to openly state misgivings with the NIST reports.

There is no "finally"....people have always accepted the limitations of the models and conclusions. You guys are late to the game and are acting like you revealed something new.....you did not.

People have openly stated misgivings about the NIST report for a long time....people have written papers disagreeing with some of the details in NIST.

Some people disagree with the specifics in both NIST and Bazant...so what? This is nothing new. They still agree with the general conclusions...and the general conclusion is that it was not a controlled demolition. If you have something convincing that says otherwise please present it. Otherwise you are just wasting our time and are in the wrong forum by trying to comb over specific details that, even if wrong, do nothing to change the general conclusion.

(I hope that continues, and all areas within such can be identified clarified, improved and corrected...the end result being a better understanding of the events in question (rather than *siding with* incorrect assertions based upon, what, peer pressure ?)
(end off topic)

You areassuming that people are "siding with" incorrect assertions based upon something like peer pressure.

1. As you have seen in this very thread it is very debatable whether or not you or MT has shown any assertions to be truly in error within the scope of the paper(s).

2. You continue to minor in the majors and major in the minors, but proving NIST wrong in some details or Bazant wrong in some detail(s) doesn't accomplish anything towards proving a controlled demolition.

So at the end of the day you haven't proven anything conclusively.

You haven't told anyone anything they didn't already know.

You haven't provided an alternate explanation.

You have shown that you are prone to errors in math/physics.

You have not convinced anyone of anything.

 

[tsig]

My debate strategy is pretty clear. I have been following this general pattern:



a) First, Introduce a correct collapse propagation theory. Clear up many misunderstandings of all parties in the "debate". Misunderstandings by AE911T, by many regular JREF posters, by STJ911, by Bazant.

Knowledge and observation of the ROOSD process allow us to be specific when "debating" unlike any time previously.

Both self-proclaimed "debunkers" and "truthers" have helped spread many tall tales. The current atmosphere is thick with poor interpretation of photographic evidence. "The debate" is 95% hot air and fantasy. Knowledge of the ROOSD process destroys many of those illusions, allowing us to talk about specific features of collapse with a common underlying understanding for the first time.



b) Second, destroy the most common illusions that put a stranglehold on true, honest debate. For regular posters at JREF, this illusion is that some accepted authority has provided convincing answers to the demolition question.

The heart of this belief in such scientific authority is an attachment to the claims of "proof" by Dr Bazant and the NIST. Many posters are convinced that mechanisms of collapse of all three towers have been identified.

This is totally untrue. The collapses of all three towers remain a total mystery, and no scientific authority has come close to solving or explaining the mystery.


This is a fact that many here will fight to deny: The true causes for the collapses of all 3 towers remains unknown. In reality, the NIST was not able to identify the causes of any of the collapses.

No mechanism of collapse has yet been correctly identified


Speaking of illusions, to be fair, many claims by 9/11 truth groups are verifiably incorrect and these illusions must also be destroyed. The researchers that I feel have contributed most to 9/11 resreach have been largely ignored by the mainstream 9/11 truth movement. This is because many false claims have been made by AE911T, for example, and the researchers mentioned can probably call their bluff on those false claims. Unfortunately, the tendency of AE911T, for example, has been to shelter itself from honest debate with other truthers such as myself. Not healthy.



c) Once illusions have lost their power to dominate the scope of the "debate", and people overcome the tendency to cite abstract authority as decisive "proof", Free of the stranglehold of illusions, we will debate collapse features more clearly and specifically, maybe for the first time.


All features worth considering will be presented as comprehensive lists of information. We will find that a knowledge of the ROOSD process will give us a much better ability to see the collapse processes as a whole. We will also notice that many subtle features are seemingly inexplicable even with a knowledge of ROOSD.

From my experience, the more I have studied subtle features of the initiation processes and collapses, the more mysterious the events become. There are many curious features that most people have not noticed about the actual events, mainly because they are looking for big bombs, or tons and tons of TNT, or space beams, or nukes......or pyroclastic clouds, or rivers and streams of molten metal....

If you know about the possibility of a ROOSD process, then you have a great advantage in knowing where to look for curious features of the collapses of WTC1 and 2. It's a great help. There are certain areas that cause natural discontinuities for the ROOSD process, like mechanical room floors, for example, that the observant researcher will want to study in detail.


In this thread I am working on part "b", destroying common illusions.

Then you are going about it in the wrong way.

Looks like all your problems are coming home to ROOST.

 

[femr2]

Most deal with progression....I'm not sure if any of them deal with initiation in the detail you are looking for.

Noted.

But this should not be a surprise since NIST published a very comprehensive report that dealt with that very topic.

However, the NIST conclusions on the initiation mechanisms have repeatedly been brought into question.

Near enough, in your opinion, is not good enough in mine.

Even if NIST made errors or does not have an exact model ... it currently is the most comprehensive study to date.

Is it correct ? If not, what is the correct initiation mechanism ?

Sure...but if your goal is to point out that the NIST model might not be exactly what happened then I fail to see the point.

On what basis are you suggesting near exact ? Wrong is simply wrong, requiring determination of what is correct.

So given a choice between you/MT and Bazant/NIST I will of course give more weight to what Bazant and NIST have to say.

You've just bundled NIST and Bazant together. Not an insignificant error. It has already been highlighted that conclusions of Bazant et al are out of the scope to which their model applies, so are simply their opinion. Your opinion based on the opinion of others. Great stuff. Facts would be nice

I don't think anyone doubts that Bazant or NIST are likely wrong on some of the specifics...this is a complex problem and I don't think anyone fully understands the initiation or progression. The best we can do is try to describe it and model it the best we can and accept the general conclusions of the best theory that we currently have.

If you choose to tentatively accept such conclusions opinions, that's entirely up to you. Stating that *that is what happened, fact* doesn't follow. Even *that's probably what happened* would be a step forward for you.

The specifics might never be known.....but neither NIST nor Bazant claimed to have nailed down every specific without question. They made the best models and gave the best explanations they could within the scope of what they were attempting to explain.

So...detail the correct initiating mechanisms and sequence, newton3376.

So it's more about what is more probable then who is "right" and who is "wrong".

It is about what is correct and what is wrong.

And so far you have not done a very good job of showing that the general conclusions of NIST or Bazant are improbable.

I have posted little discussion of initiation, sure. There's been too much argument from folk defending the pre-existing propogation studies.

Perhaps now that general outlook on such is becoming clearer it will be possible to discuss initiation in more detail.

There is no "finally"....people have always accepted the limitations of the models and conclusions.

Who are you speaking for ?

You are assuming that people are "siding with" incorrect assertions based upon something like peer pressure.

I'm certainly stating you are, based upon you saying..."I am inclined to side with NIST, Bazant, Perdue, etc".

(Perdue in there is an eye-opener )

1. As you have seen in this very thread it is very debatable whether or not you or MT has shown any assertions to be truly in error within the scope of the paper(s).

Application of the Bazant et al models beyond the base conclusion of enough energy available for propogation is erronious imo. Conclusions in BLGB stating *proof of...* are also erronious. If you choose to argue such ad infinitum, feel free.

2. You continue to minor in the majors and major in the minors, but proving NIST wrong in some details or Bazant wrong in some detail(s) doesn't accomplish anything towards proving a controlled demolition.

What is the correct initiation sequence and mechanism, regardless of your personal belief of the purpose of determining such ?

So at the end of the day you haven't proven anything conclusively.

Have NIST ? Bazant et al ?

(There are numerous things that I have proven conclusively, but I doubt this thread is the right place for such a discussion, and so irrelevant here)