OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[DGM]

This is exactly it.

For what it's worth. He still posts this here because we're the only ones still listening. "Truthers" are banning him because his book "debunks" Tony Sz's "missing jolt" (and all his others).

If MT could get past this block, maybe we could have some interesting discussions here. The problem is, he doesn't want to get too technical because he doesn't have the chops. That aside he also doesn't have what he'd like, we all know what that is (his book and comments allude to it). He can't come out with a CD scenario and see his book as "the most accurate mappings" at the same time.

 

[LSSBB]

For what it's worth. He still posts this here because we're the only ones still listening. "Truthers" are banning him because his book "debunks" Tony Sz's "missing jolt" (and all his others).

If MT could get past this block, maybe we could have some interesting discussions here. The problem is, he doesn't want to get too technical because he doesn't have the chops. That aside he also doesn't have what he'd like, we all know what that is (his book and comments allude to it). He can't come out with a CD scenario and see his book as "the most accurate mappings" at the same time.

Yeah, I think I even made that point, long ago and possibly in another thread, that his only real target should be Tony Sz.I even brought him up in the Tony's paper thread as a counter example to Tony's claim in his paper that Bazant is the only competing theory to his own explanation of the collapse. Tony never really addressed that point, probably because MT is unpublished.

If Tom really wants academic credit, he needs to publish in the academic arena. Whining here is utterly pointless.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Why is it that so few people notice the relation between Bazant's proposal for data on collapses and his lack of data on the WTC collapses in 2007 with the Femr2 abundance of data presented in 2009-2010? >>>> Snipped a bunch of incoherent nonsense...

Femr's data is flawed try reading more than one thread.

Existing, reliable, reviewed scientific literature covers it quite thoroughly.

When you get around to this let us now and be sure to include the CD fantasy, I could use a good laugh.

 

[Major_Tom]

I couldn't care a lot less about that, but on page 1 you said, "It does belong here because once the model is accepted, we can examine conclusions in view of CD. Please give me some time to show that. I need to get through the initial resistance first."

Any ETA?

When I started the thread I had no idea how strong and pervasive this initial resistance would be. When I first noticed how poorly these concepts were understood within the first few pages I wrote:

I didn't expect such massive resistance to the study in the OP. I realized that most of the people posting here use the Bazant papers like a security blanket.

I assumed that people would quickly be able to see that ideas like "crush down, then crush up" cannot be applied to WTC1 as Bazant does. Instead, I realized that there is a type of cult within your forum consisting of "Bazant followers" who see some perfection within the papers that does not exist.

For this reason I needed to post reviews on BZ, BV and BLGB. I was very surprised to learn how few of you are capable of understanding the papers. This is why the Bazant papers have been discussed for so long in this thread, much to my disappointment.

I wrote that in June, 2010 on page 11, only one month after starting the thread.




It is now 2014 and these memes on BV have fossilized. BV eqs 12 and 17 are not examined in any meaningful, critical way within meme processing.



Are you still waiting for me to examine the initiation sequences or examine the question of demolition from a ROOSD perspective?





Threads started by Major_Tom in this forum:


May 11, 2010: OOS Collapse Model. This thread branched into 2 threads about Bazant, collapse mode and ROOSD: Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world and Bazant's crush-down/crush-up model .

October 26, 2010: WTC 1 Feature List

January 16, 2011: 3 Bazant Papers on WTC Debunked

June 1, 2011: WTC 2 Feature List

April 17, 2012: Major_Tom Disproves NIST Claims in a Number of Key Areas




The threads address, in order:


WTC1, 2 collapse progression descriptive and mathematical models

WTC1 collapse initiation mappings

Bazant's WTC related papers published 2007 to the present

WTC2 collapse initiation mappings

Construction of composite mappings of the WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 collapse initiation and progression processes and comparison of the visual record to the written history of the collapses.



Of the first 4 threads I started, all but the first were either merged or removed from the subforum (or merged and removed). Of all 5 threads only two remain within this subforum. The WTC2 feature list thread was merged with the WTC1 feature list thread and both were removed from this subforum. The thread on the Bazant papers was merged into page 33 of the "applicability" thread was basically ignored (and still is).



The WTC1 and 2 feature lists were later refined and are now the most accurate and detailed mappings of WTC1 and WTC2 collapse initiation behavior available anywhere.



And you are still waiting for me to move beyond the current topic of ROOSD or Bazant??

 

[LSSBB]

When I started the thread I had no idea how strong and pervasive this initial resistance would be. When I first noticed how poorly these concepts were understood within the first few pages I wrote:




I wrote that in June, 2010 on page 11, only one month after starting the thread.




It is now 2014 and these memes on BV have fossilized. BV eqs 12 and 17 are not examined in any meaningful, critical way within meme processing.



Are you still waiting for me to examine the initiation sequences or examine the question of demolition from a ROOSD perspective?





Threads started by Major_Tom in this forum:


May 11, 2010: OOS Collapse Model. This thread branched into 2 threads about Bazant, collapse mode and ROOSD: Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world and Bazant's crush-down/crush-up model .

October 26, 2010: WTC 1 Feature List

January 16, 2011: 3 Bazant Papers on WTC Debunked

June 1, 2011: WTC 2 Feature List

April 17, 2012: Major_Tom Disproves NIST Claims in a Number of Key Areas




The threads address, in order:


WTC1, 2 collapse progression descriptive and mathematical models

WTC1 collapse initiation mappings

Bazant's WTC related papers published 2007 to the present

WTC2 collapse initiation mappings

Construction of composite mappings of the WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 collapse initiation and progression processes and comparison of the visual record to the written history of the collapses.



Of the first 4 threads I started, all but the first were either merged or removed from the subforum (or merged and removed). Of all 5 threads only two remain within this subforum. The WTC2 feature list thread was merged with the WTC1 feature list thread and both were removed from this subforum. The thread on the Bazant papers was merged into page 33 of the "applicability" thread was basically ignored (and still is).



The WTC1 and 2 feature lists were later refined and are now the most accurate and detailed mappings of WTC1 and WTC2 collapse initiation behavior available anywhere.



And you are still waiting for me to move beyond the current topic of ROOSD or Bazant??

Ah, it appears what you did was, after posting the OP, come up with another theory ("there is a cult") . You apparently then gathered evidence in support of your theory, and now you are expecting the issue you defined with your theory to fix itself.

 

[jaydeehess]

Are you still waiting for me to examine the initiation sequences or examine the question of demolition from a ROOSD perspective?

You've had many agree that what you call roosd is correct and have been asked to move away from psychoanalysis of perceptions of a third party's, Bazant, work at least a dozen times. What was your first clue that other posters thought it was time to do so?

 

[beachnut]

... April 17, 2012: Major_Tom Disproves NIST Claims in a Number of Key Areas? ...

August 24, 2014, Major Tom has no clue what the Number of Key Areas were that he disproved about NIST, or anything other than the "gravity collapse is an illusion" bs stuff. What was your conclusion??

Where is the list of key areas you disproved?

Is the "Number" that has you stalled out, the math thing?

Where is the list of Key Areas?

 

[tsig]

When I started the thread I had no idea how strong and pervasive this initial resistance would be. When I first noticed how poorly these concepts were understood within the first few pages I wrote:




I wrote that in June, 2010 on page 11, only one month after starting the thread.




It is now 2014 and these memes on BV have fossilized. BV eqs 12 and 17 are not examined in any meaningful, critical way within meme processing.



Are you still waiting for me to examine the initiation sequences or examine the question of demolition from a ROOSD perspective?





Threads started by Major_Tom in this forum:


May 11, 2010: OOS Collapse Model. This thread branched into 2 threads about Bazant, collapse mode and ROOSD: Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world and Bazant's crush-down/crush-up model .

October 26, 2010: WTC 1 Feature List

January 16, 2011: 3 Bazant Papers on WTC Debunked

June 1, 2011: WTC 2 Feature List

April 17, 2012: Major_Tom Disproves NIST Claims in a Number of Key Areas




The threads address, in order:


WTC1, 2 collapse progression descriptive and mathematical models

WTC1 collapse initiation mappings

Bazant's WTC related papers published 2007 to the present

WTC2 collapse initiation mappings

Construction of composite mappings of the WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 collapse initiation and progression processes and comparison of the visual record to the written history of the collapses.



Of the first 4 threads I started, all but the first were either merged or removed from the subforum (or merged and removed). Of all 5 threads only two remain within this subforum. The WTC2 feature list thread was merged with the WTC1 feature list thread and both were removed from this subforum. The thread on the Bazant papers was merged into page 33 of the "applicability" thread was basically ignored (and still is).



The WTC1 and 2 feature lists were later refined and are now the most accurate and detailed mappings of WTC1 and WTC2 collapse initiation behavior available anywhere.



And you are still waiting for me to move beyond the current topic of ROOSD or Bazant??

Yes.

 

[Major_Tom]

Ah, it appears what you did was, after posting the OP, come up with another theory ("there is a cult") .

No. I quickly noticed the people responding had no idea how to read, derive, or apply BV eqs 12 and 17 and Seffen eq 12.





BV eq 12:

BV eq 17:

Seffen eq 12:

You apparently then gathered evidence in support of your theory, and now you are expecting the issue you defined with your theory to fix itself.

No. The regular posters literally created a mythical interpretation of BV eq 12 and 17 derivation and application in the first 12 pages of this thread, much to my surprise. Even today, 4 years later, people still openly demonstrate in this same thread that they do not know how Bazant or David Benson apply eqs 12 and 17 or how Seffen applies eq 12 .

 

[Newtons Bit]

No. The regular posters literally created a mythical interpretation of BV eq 12 and 17 derivation and application in the first 12 pages of this thread, much to my surprise. Even today, 4 years later, people still openly demonstrate in this same thread that they do not know how Bazant or David Benson apply eqs 12 and 17 or how Seffen applies eq 12 .

I know, right? Some people actually take the time to read what B&V says the purpose of the paper is, then put their equations into that context. The people that completely disregard the text explanations are probably just lunatics that cannot admit that they are capable of making mistakes.

 

[jaydeehess]

No. I quickly noticed the people responding had no idea how to read, derive, or apply BV eqs 12 and 17 and Seffen eq 12.





BV eq 12:

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/bv_eq12.png[/qimg]

BV eq 17:

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/bv_eq17.png[/qimg]






Seffen eq 12:

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/seffen_eq12.png[/qimg]
No. The regular posters literally created a mythical interpretation of BV eq 12 and 17 derivation and application in the first 12 pages of this thread, much to my surprise. Even today, 4 years later, people still openly demonstrate in this same thread that they do not know how Bazant or David Benson apply eqs 12 and 17 or how Seffen applies eq 12 .

Why is this important in discussing ROOSD? Are you stating that these equations apply to ROOSD as you describe it as having occured?

Are these equations relevant in discussing how demolitions might take place in a ROOSD driven collapse? If not then why is it important in such a discussion?

why are you so hung up on the perception by others, of the works of a third party, Bazant, in a paper in which you are pushing a driving mechanism of collapse that agrees with what NIST portrayed as being in effect?

 

[beachnut]

No. I quickly noticed the people responding had no idea how to read, derive, or apply BV eqs 12 and 17 and Seffen eq 12.
...

Reminds me of College and Grad school - did they prohibit math at your college?

Really. This is called projection; lots of contempt for math and models, and project the lack of knowledge to others.

Does the "gravity collapse was an illusion" still stand.

 

[Major_Tom]

Why is this important in discussing ROOSD?

The first reflexive 'knee-jerk' reaction to the information in this forum is expressed most completely and articulately by Newtons Bit, R Mackey, Dave Rogers, and Myriad and their reasoning can be reviewed at the links below:

Newtons Bit
R Mackey
Dave Rogers and Myriad






An overall summary of how the BV, BL, BLGB papers and the OOS propagation model are perceived within this environment of JREF is linked here (these quotes are from p 1-13).

Within these comments both BV eqs 12 and 17 and the OOS model are continuously misrepresented. The OOS model is largely misinterpreted through the incapacity to apply critical thinking to BV, BL, and BLGB and in particular, to BV eqs 12 and 17.

 

[jaydeehess]

The first reflexive 'knee-jerk' reaction to the information in this forum is expressed most completely and articulately by Newtons Bit, R Mackey, Dave Rogers, and Myriad and their reasoning can be reviewed at the links below:

Newtons Bit
R Mackey
Dave Rogers and Myriad






An overall summary of how the BV, BL, BLGB papers and the OOS propagation model are perceived within this environment of JREF is linked here (these quotes are from p 1-13).

Within these comments both BV eqs 12 and 17 and the OOS model are continuously misrepresented. The OOS model is largely misinterpreted through the incapacity to apply critical thinking to BV, BL, and BLGB and in particular, to BV eqs 12 and 17.

If there are misinterpretations of ROOSD that is one thing. However that has not been your focus. Instead you continue to harp on supposed misinterpretations of a third party's, Bazant, works , without ever connecting this to your iwn work. That is at best puzzling.

 

[LSSBB]

If there are misinterpretations of ROOSD that is one thing. However that has not been your focus. Instead you continue to harp on supposed misinterpretations of a third party's, Bazant, works , without ever connecting this to your iwn work. That is at best puzzling.

It's as if Ahab was passive. This situation will not resolve itself.

 

[Newtons Bit]

If there are misinterpretations of ROOSD that is one thing. However that has not been your focus. Instead you continue to harp on supposed misinterpretations of a third party's, Bazant, works , without ever connecting this to your iwn work. That is at best puzzling.

And he refuses to address our claims regarding B&V, he ignores them, and then makes up straw men.

 

[GlennB]

As time passes I have less and less clue what he's trying to achieve here.

I can't recall, in fact, the last time he posted anything 9/11 CT related.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Are you still waiting for me to examine the initiation sequences or examine the question of demolition from a ROOSD perspective?

<snip>
And you are still waiting for me to move beyond the current topic of ROOSD or Bazant??

Nope, I've given up.

 

[MileHighMadness]

Since we are cutting and pasting equations, how about

E=mc²
Does that help?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Since we are cutting and pasting equations, how about

E=mc²
Does that help?

Can't you see the contradiction between Einstein and ROOOOOOSD?