Dear me tom, you are obsessed with pedantic argument.
Yet again (and what you missed a long time ago)...
Track that bit of perimeter in...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFZU3ClJkvY
Et voila.
Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world
- Thread starter pgimeno
- Start date
Dear me tom, you are obsessed with pedantic argument.
Yet again (and what you missed a long time ago)...
Track that bit of perimeter in...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFZU3ClJkvY
Et voila.
In other words, you are incapable of constructing an argument that would get a D grade in the 5th grade.
We can now add "debate" to the list of your competencies.
Poor old tom...
Perimeter peel far, far behind crush front, pushed outwards by the wedge aaction of the *upper block*.
A picture tells a thousand words.
222 pictures, commonly referred to as video evidence, answers your question.
Why waste my time verbalising when you know, regardless of what those words actually are, you'll spend countless hours whingeing about them.
You got some 'splainin to do.
Have a nice day.
Perimeter peel far, far behind crush front, pushed outwards by the wedge aaction of the *upper block*.
A picture tells a thousand words.
222 pictures, commonly referred to as video evidence, answers your question.
Why waste my time verbalising when you know, regardless of what those words actually are, you'll spend countless hours whingeing about them.
You got some 'splainin to do.
Have a nice day.
Guys,
I don't know how to make it plainer.
I'm open minded about everything. I just require evidence.
Your graphs and animated gifs will never, ever convince a sane person that you know what you're talking about. Moreover, your presentation of crazy over-animated graphs and 5 meg gifs that freeze people's browsers aren't winning you any converts.
Why can't you take this advice on board and use words and numbers to make your arguments? Why can't you take the friendly advice regarding the audience that you are targeting?
I don't know how to make it plainer.
I'm open minded about everything. I just require evidence.
Your graphs and animated gifs will never, ever convince a sane person that you know what you're talking about. Moreover, your presentation of crazy over-animated graphs and 5 meg gifs that freeze people's browsers aren't winning you any converts.
Why can't you take this advice on board and use words and numbers to make your arguments? Why can't you take the friendly advice regarding the audience that you are targeting?
There's no better evidence than real-world footage illustrating the point perfectly.
You have eyes. Nothing more is required.
Have the same thing in a YT container...
And upgrade your browser. Mac I assume.
Video evidence is better than a thousand words.
Hostile audience. Take it or leave it. Anyone saying crush fronts couldn't or didn't progress far in advance of perimeter peel is simply wrong.
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,329
Not at all. I've discussed 9/11 for years.
I've discussed all kinds of possibilities, including demolition of various types, and have rejected truck-loads of them by digging into the details...counting the angels on a pin as some say.
Spending time mining old quotes is a bizarre thing for you to be doing.
Your point ? I've mentioned demolition in old quotes on YT ? LOL.
Once you've all gotten to grips with crush front propogation, we can go into some detail on initiating sequencing and behaviour.
If there's progress, perhaps you can all go home
That would be nice eh ?
Cool story bro.
Bizarre is creating hundreds of irrelevant youtube videos related to 9/11.
Didn't anyone tell you? The truth movement is dead, we're just here for the LOLZ.
Thanks for providing the material.
Have a nice day!
WTC1 south and north collapse fronts are separated by over 10 floors.
Very visible here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Xenomorph911WTC#p/u/40/a2yKp39khqI
The light grey floor by floor ejections can't be some pressure front leading the actual slab destruction because they appear as vertical rows of destruction, happening down the south side of the west face while the north side grey rows of ejections follow over 10 floors behind.
Both WTC1 and 2 have collapse fronts on different sides of the building separated by a number of floors. Anyone can see it. The floor by floor light grey ejections happen down vertical corridors, not across open floor spaces.
There is no way to explain the different elevations of different collapse fronts as pressurization of open floor space to the point of blowing out the windows in rows.
We watch the light grey cotton-ball types of ejections move down the building floor by floor...
And later we see the side of the building peel away:
Just like the WTC2 east face shown earlier.
This means we are not witnessing "pancaking", but a runaway run of erosion down specific OOS corridors.
This changes the idea of the top acting like a "piston", since OOS destruction runs locally down vertical corridors, the south outstripping the north by a considerable margin.
Very visible here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Xenomorph911WTC#p/u/40/a2yKp39khqI
The light grey floor by floor ejections can't be some pressure front leading the actual slab destruction because they appear as vertical rows of destruction, happening down the south side of the west face while the north side grey rows of ejections follow over 10 floors behind.
Both WTC1 and 2 have collapse fronts on different sides of the building separated by a number of floors. Anyone can see it. The floor by floor light grey ejections happen down vertical corridors, not across open floor spaces.
There is no way to explain the different elevations of different collapse fronts as pressurization of open floor space to the point of blowing out the windows in rows.
We watch the light grey cotton-ball types of ejections move down the building floor by floor...
And later we see the side of the building peel away:
Just like the WTC2 east face shown earlier.
This means we are not witnessing "pancaking", but a runaway run of erosion down specific OOS corridors.
This changes the idea of the top acting like a "piston", since OOS destruction runs locally down vertical corridors, the south outstripping the north by a considerable margin.
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
The problem is not simply in the method of putting forward claims but we seem to be several sets of moved goalposts away from what started the 'discussion'. Reminds me of the old maxim:
When you are up to your arse in alligators it is easy to forget that the objective was "Drain the swamp".
I think the discussion grew out of the (to me) surprising news that a couple of members were not familiar with and did not accept the dominant explanation of the global collapse mechanism for the Twin Towers. Certainly tfk ridiculed the idea that the top block fell mostly inside the outer tube of the lower tower, leaving the outer tube to fall later when the collapse front had advanced a number of stories. The completion of that explanation being that the core also seemed to have collapsed later than the OOS floor space and peeled of outer tube columns.
Now the news that some did not accept the explanation was a surprise to me - I thought it was agreed common ground among most people discussing Twin Towers collapse. Yes with a lot of differences in the detail but the broad brush was I thought settled.
Now after a couple of refocusses of attention we see a secondary debate about whether the pressure front and the crush front (AKA the internal collapse front?) are different and suggestions that the difference is significant.
So.
- Is everybody happy that the top block and accumulating debris fell mostly inside the outer tube of the lower tower? If not why not?
- Is everybody satisfied that the parts of the outer tube were left behind by the advancing collapse front and fell later? If not why not?
If we really do need to revise this 2007 era stuff lets do it and get it out of the way.
Now for myself I prefer videos which clearly show the basics over words which we struggle to interpret. A picture is worth a thousand words. And I don't mind if the picture is hosted on a 'truther' site.
PS Damn! you are all too fast for me. Beaten at the post.
Last edited:
We are talking about buildings collapsing to the ground. How in the world is video the best evidence? You can't see inside, you can't see past the debris.
No.femr2 said:
I'm not going to watch that. Feel free to choose one of the following:femr2 said:
Act smug that the 'debunker' won't watch your video. What a closed- minded fool.
Think seriously that your delivery and materials aren't persuasive enough to cause a 'debunker' to click on your video. Hmm.
Correct. I wonder if your animated gifs freeze iPads and iPhones as well. Is it your goal to annoy people rather than convince them? If so, good job.femr2 said:
I have no evidence for that. Every time I think I understand something, you guys present a new, cropped, weird-shaped flashing video of who knows what. When the engineers post, I can totally understand what they say. When team intentionally obtuse post, I have no idea what you are saying.femr2 said:
No. tfk's questions are clear. Why can't you answer them?femr2 said:
tfk said:
Ozeco post 1849: "If we really do need to revise this 2007 era stuff lets do it and get it out of the way."
Amen. The problem here is that some people are so attached to Dr Bazant, they can't give up the BV equations of motion.
We know much more now than Bazant did in 2007 about specifics of the collapses.
All this info needs to be updated, but people need Bazant to be some kind of a Prophet, so they keep trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.
Amen. The problem here is that some people are so attached to Dr Bazant, they can't give up the BV equations of motion.
We know much more now than Bazant did in 2007 about specifics of the collapses.
All this info needs to be updated, but people need Bazant to be some kind of a Prophet, so they keep trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.
ozeco41
Philosopher
True. And even if it wasn't the derail into distinguishing pressure front from collapse front would be hard pressed to make a case for multiple floors difference.
Moral of story - Don't chase red herring derails.
Which seems to be a valid interpretation. And justifies your extension of ROOSD into "zones" where previously I had been content to treat it as near enough to a full floor pancake description. I was aware of the shortcut but it did not interfere with my use of the concept as an explanation. However the greater finesse of your explantion is valuable at this stage of this discussion. Simply put it tosses the dubious misuse of the distinction between pressure wave and collapse front out of some proverbial orifice. Under pressure naturally.
ozeco41
Philosopher
The recent discussion in this thread has, IMO, been more positive than previously despite the still present "noise".
But we still have at least three groups of opinion coming from different perspectives and using different approaches. Most of those opposing you who actually address the topic... You and femr2 with attempted precision use of graphical evidence and me on my lonesome (I think) as the only one who seems to work from the base premise of "let's think about what must have happened".
As one of our Aussie Prime Ministers said "Life wasn't meant to be easy..."
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Excellent summary. Thank you.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
To part one: Not really. I spent more time looking at WTC 2 in response to David Chandler's videos. There seem to be several complex things going on more or less simultaneously, but it's virtually impossible IMO to make a definitive call as to their exact extent and timing.
You have an asymmetrical failure which allows, in very short order, for the upper block to rotate. It ends up falling onto the lower portion in that state. Would I accurately describe this as 'inside' the exterior columns? No way. (Just draw a diagram of it and it's obvious why that is - the horizontal span of said block is far greater than that of the lower block)
Are the forces it imparts straight down? No way.
It's just not that simple. And this doesn't even account for the debris which is accompanying/leading whatever intact portion of the upper block you have.
At least for WTC 2, there was no intact core at the point the upper block was rotating, obviously, nor could the upper block fall 'around' the core below and avoid it. Not possible based on the angles you can see.
My only real interest in the collapse was to test some of Chandler's claims regarding the exterior column sections (particularly the one in Femr2's gif above) that this was some kind of evidence of explosive demolition, blasting them outwards.
I hope I've answered your 'why not' question to the best of my ability.
As an aside I admit my interest wanes when it comes to figuring out exactly what fell from where and at what time for the rest of the collapse. The thing was collapsing, so it really doesn't matter that much to me, honestly. I'm not trying to be a building engineer and even my morbid curiosity has limits.
I also don't spend my time poring over pictures and videos of car wrecks for similar reasons.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
As to the OP, I do concur with many others that BV, BL and BLBG offer quite reasonable and professional assessments that the tower collapses did not require secret demolition explosives or thermitic compounds.
Germane to this forum, there is no equivalent engineering model to support the truther argument in favor of such demolition.
The rest of the bickering about what exactly happened in each second of each collapse is quite irrelevant to the question of demolition, given the above. Especially when the main advocates of alternative thinking utterly fail to present a single shred of evidence of explosives in the process.
This ain't the right forum for the current discussion, IMO.
Germane to this forum, there is no equivalent engineering model to support the truther argument in favor of such demolition.
The rest of the bickering about what exactly happened in each second of each collapse is quite irrelevant to the question of demolition, given the above. Especially when the main advocates of alternative thinking utterly fail to present a single shred of evidence of explosives in the process.
This ain't the right forum for the current discussion, IMO.
AE, knowledge of the possibility of a ROOSD process can help debunkers and truthers alike realize that you do not have to blow the building to bits in order to have a clean, well controlled demolition.
You don't need tons and tons and tons of bombs to initiate a ROOSD process and break core column bolted connections and welds at certain fixed intervals.
ROOSD does most all the work for you.
In fact, knowledge of the ROOSD process within a tube structure allows us all to clear our heads of 95% of the pure BS spread by truthers and debunkers alike.
It allows us to focus on the most important questionable features without all the cartoon block physics arguments and exaggerated stories of the level of difficulty of such an attack.
Like the ROOSD process itself, the OOS collapse propagation model can strip the study of possible demolition of WTC1 and 2 down to understanding a few basic predictable processes and the details of and leading up to collapse initiation.
So in a possible demo of WTC1, for example, the ROOSD process is your real work-horse. It is the real destroyer of the building, not oodles of bombs.
The demolition planner merely initiates and steers the ROOSD process. You will not need nukes for that, nor thousands of men.
Last edited:
What happened? "let's think about what must have happened"; terrorist took 4 jets and crashed three of them into buildings, killing people.The recent discussion in this thread has, IMO, been more positive than previously despite the still present "noise".
But we still have at least three groups of opinion coming from different perspectives and using different approaches. Most of those opposing you who actually address the topic... You and femr2 with attempted precision use of graphical evidence and me on my lonesome (I think) as the only one who seems to work from the base premise of "let's think about what must have happened".
As one of our Aussie Prime Ministers said "Life wasn't meant to be easy..."
A few 911 truthers can't comprehend Bazant's model, or 911. You treat them as if they had substance.
This is the best post...
Nice post, and correct.
Of course Major Tom will go with his delusion, the moronic demolition done by people he can't name; his paranoid conspiracy theory!
Major Tom's delusion is showing, again.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
I wasn't expecting a response from you M_T, since I was just replying to ozeco's question.
I don't agree with your arguments though. You're essentially positing that the alleged CD was engineered to be indistinguishable from a fire-induced collapse - I'm cutting to the chase, of course - but there inevitably will be an important point of distinction between your viewpoint and that of well-informed skeptics: the skeptics will probably concede that, in theory, both possibilities for collapse exist (Fires or CD), but that fire cannot be ruled out, and is really the most logical explanation. The skeptic will apply the equivalent of Occam's Razor and reject CD.
You and other CD theorists will no doubt claim that fire can be ruled out, and CD is the only possible explanation.
However, I believe that this is a simple mistake on the part of CD theorists, since fire cannot plausibly be ruled out; further, it is a complete waste of time to attempt to do so.
The best you can really hope for, in a rational environment, is to be one of the theories which will be ultimately rejected and discredited by the scientific community. That's just my opinion.
I bolded one section of your comments because they contain a distillation of your most obvious mistakes: you disparage the competent work of qualified people as 'cartoon block physics arguments'.
Sure, the equations don't explain every single feature of a complex event, but your hypothesis is not even a mathematical model. It's Oranges to Femr2's Apples, mate.
I'm willing to bet you'll never formulate a coherent mathematical model for the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapses explaining your ROOSD concept, and get it published in a respected engineering journal. I don't think you have the chops to prove the thing you are trying to prove, but then I'm a skeptic.
Prove me wrong if you can.
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
Thanks. The reason I asked the question was that some 'debunker side' members has said they disagreed with the global collapse mechanism as I outlined it. They were then using that to disagree with femr2 and Major_Tom about ROOSD.
Quite a funny bit of role reversal since ROOSD is merely a femr2/Major_Tom label for what is the closest thing to a mainstream debunker side accepted explanation of the global collapse. Taken into more detailed explanation by Major_Tom.
Closest thing because most 'debunker side' people don't concern themselves with the details BUT two of us posting here have extended their explanations of global collapse. The irony for some would be that Major_Tom - who is categorised as a truther by most - has extended and added detail to the 'debunker side' explanation. Then, not as well known but published for some years, I have also posted more expansive explanations. And no way am I a truther.
So we seemed to reach the situation where debunkers were disagreeing with a debunker explanation because Major_Tom had claimed ownership of it by giving it a name. If I was a cynic I would be amused at the 'reversal' situation but I will let that opportunity for digression pass.