OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[Major_Tom]

I have one more set of questions to which I will be referring through the remaining part of this train-wreck of a thread. The questions are once again carefully chosen to allow anyone with a sincere interest in the subject of the Bazant papers on the WTC collapses published from 2007 to the present to see these papers for what they really are.

within the JREF/ISF environment there have been so many lies endlessly repeated about these papers. These lies have been and will be repeated with a hypnotic regularity. Anyone who doesn't passively submit to the artificial memeplex surrounding these papers will be subject to abuse by those who have demonstrated no capacity to simply read these papers and separate fact from fiction.


I hope these simple quotes and questions can help the more sincere observers among the readers, truther, debunker, or more non-attached honest observers curious about the written history of the WTC collapses to disabuse yourselves of the crap to which you have been subject for years. Peace.



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


David Benson, co-author of What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York

Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David B. Benson (BGLB), in a recorded dialog with the author. All quotes are from David Benson:




David Benson on WTC1:

"On another matter, we ordinarily start with the simplest hypothesis and stik with it until some evidence shows the hypothesis must be modified. In the case of the top portion, the simplest is that it stayed on top most of the way down; say with the roof at around floor 25. Until someone develops some actual evidence to the contrary, I'll stick with that rather than unending speculation and new simulations of the resulting hypothesis."

from this post



Question 1: When making this statement, does David Benson seem aware that the WTC1 upper portion basically dis-integrated very early during the collapse process?

Question 2: When making this statement, does David Benson state that he actually believed the WTC1 'upper block' remained intact and on top of the lower portion of the building until reaching the 25th floor?




David Benson on WTC1:

"Assuming homogeneity, Bazaant & Le show thaqt zone C is almost industrucible. That's mechincs for you. The sturcture obviiously was not homogeneous and you have, in other threads, shown some distruction along the west and north walls. In of itself that mass loss is not important, but it does mean the floor trusses in those areas have been weakened. So an average of about 4--6 stories above floor 98 do not come close to satisfying the homogeneity condition. Fine. consider then that zone C is from floor, say, 102 up. To keep the equation simple, assume crush-down begins from there. As I mentiioned in this thread yesterday, this works well enough to match the additional observations by OneWhiteEye.
"

from this post

Question 3: At the time of this statement did David Benson understand that zone c (the upper block) of WTC1 dis-integrated shortly after collapse initiation?

Question 4: How does David Benson suggest the WTC1 upper portion behaved based on his understanding of the visual record?

Question 5: Within this statement does David Benson consider the upper portion of WTC1 from the 102nd floor upwards to be virtually indestructible based on the arguments given in the paper by Bazant and Le?




David Benson on WTC1:

"Zone C simply disappears into the obscuring dusts. Not sufficient reason to assume it is being crushed first. If sufficiently close to homogeneous, then from Bazant & Le it is not being crushed at all."

from this post


Question 6: At the time of this statement, how did David Benson interpret the video evidence with respect to the movement and intactness of zone C (the 'upper block')?

Question 7: Is David Benson stating that if the WTC1 upper portion is sufficiently homogeneous, then the Bazant and Le paper shows it is not being crushed at all?







David Benson on WTC1:

"OneWhiteEye --- I've been thorugh all this before. Homogenization is fine when the tilt is taken into account; crushing proceeded on 3+ floors simultaneaously which is surely better represented by homogenization that by stepwise floor-by-floor model. However, both give essentially ythe same results; shagster actually went to the effort of running his own version of Greening's ideas using minifloors to demonstrate this; although, after some study, this is analytically obvious.

He is referring to the tilt motion of WTC1 in this statement.

Question 8: Within this statement, does David Benson express the belief that applying the assumption of homoginization is fine when the bulding tilt is taken into account?

"Major_Tom --- B&V have four simplifying assumptions which lead to the crush-down ODE. These assumptions are reasonable for WTC 1 but not, by video timing, for WTC 2 after a few seconds. In the case of WTC 2 it is clear from the ABC video of the collpase proceeding down to the Mariott rooftop level that the collapse was proceeding much too slowly; the inference is that the top section broke apart and fell off rather early on.

But as BLGB indicates, this could not have happened to WTC 1 or the timing would be off."

from this post


Question 9: within ths comment does David Benson state that the 4 simplifying assumptions stated in BV are reasonable and applicable for the case of WTC1?

"Major_Tom ---
Do you doubt Newton's Laws?
Do you doubt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Alembert's_principle?
Do you doubt the applicability of the four simplifying assumptions in B&V?
If not, the conclusion of little early crush-up of zone C follows.
Further, the timing studies in BLGB show that most of zone C mass must have stayed on top most of the way down."

from this post


Question 10: Within this quote does David Benson express the belief that the timing studies in BLGB shows that most of the zone C mass (the 'upper block') of WTC1 must have stayed 'on top' most of the way down, experiencing 'little early crush up'?

Question 11: Does David Benson state that little early crush up of the wTC1 upper portion directly follows from an application of Newton's Laws, D'Alembart's principle and the fact that the four simplifying assumptions stated in the paper BV can be applied to WTC1?

"No sign of zone C falling aprat as long as it can be seen. Unlike the case of WTC 2."

from this post

Question 12: within this quote does David Benson claim there is no sign of the WTC1 upper portion falling apart for as long as it could be seen in the video evidence?









David Benson on WTC1:

"OneWhiteEye --- I'm not the one with any doubts about the matter: there can be no significant early crush-up."

from this post


Question 13: Within this statement does David Benson explicitly state that there can be 'no significant early crush up' and that he has 'no doubts' about that claim?



David Benson on WTC1:

"Read Bazant & Le to understand why zone C can be consired to be essentially rigid during crush-down.
I offered to start a thread about how to build a table-top demonstrator that will allow one to see that,
indeed, zone C remains intact during crush-down. I didn't bother when I realized that nobody here would bother to actually build it, test it, and in the process dicover that the application of Newton's laws and
d'Alembert's principle in Bazant & Verdure agrees with reality."

from this post


Question 14: Within this comment does David Benson state that the Bazant and Le paper contains the information that can help one understand why the WTC1 'upper block' (zone C) can be considered to be 'esentially rigid' during 'crush down'?

Question 15: Does he also state he considered starting a thread on how to build a table-top generator which would allow one to see that "indeed, zone C remains intact during crush-down."

Question 16: When David Benson refers to "reality" in this quote, is he referring to the actual collapse of WTC1?

"See Bazant & Le for a further exposition of why early crush-up is very small. It is, I admit, a difficult
point. But it is similar to a house riding down a landslide for which many examples have occurred in southern California."

from this post

Question 17: Within this comment does David Benson claim that the Bazant and Le paper explains why the early 'crush up' of WTC1 is "very small"?

Question 18: Within this comment does David Benson compare the 'upper block' of WTC1 to a "house riding down a landslide"?

"Albert Einstein once said something to the effect that a model should be as simple as possible, but no simplier. The B&V crush-down equation meets that criterion as long as one only considers measurements taken on the antenna mast. With your careful observations of perimeter wall sections breaking off at and above floor 98 and OneWhiteeEye's observation earlier on this thread to the effect that this led to a inhomogeneity in the structure, I then, as reported earlier on this thread, in effect moved zone C up to start at floor 102. That fits the antenna tower measurements and also (approximately) the additional observation that OneWhiteEye posted earlier on this thread, regarding the SW corner of WTC 1."

"So, the simplest possible model for WTC 1 collapse works very well even though I now conclude that some 4+ floors of early crush-up occurred due to the inhomogeneity introduced by missing perimeter wall sections. But not more early crushup than that. Once those were crushed, the homogeneity is re-introduced so that Bazant & Le then applies."

Question 19: Does David Benson, in this quote, claim that the upper portion of WTC1 may have crushed upward to floor 102, but no more than that?

Question 20: Does he claim that once floors 98 to 102 were crushed, the homogeneity of the 'upper block' is reintroduced so the Bazant and Le claim of zone C indestructibility then applies to WTC1?



David Benson on WTC1:

"OneWhiteEye --- B&L show little inital crush-up, not none at all. Since it is so small, the argument is that the crush-down only in B&V is a valid approximation."

from this post

"More complex equations simply are not required. Parsimony suggests the B&V crush-down equation with vertical avalanche resisting force together with starting the crushing front around floor 102, being good enough for the data in hand, is indeed good enough."

from this post


Question 21: When he uses the phrase a "valid approximation" in the first of the two previous quotes, to what is he referring? A valid approximation of what?


Question 22: Is David Benson claiming that the BV crush down equation with a crush front starting at floor 102 matches the actual WTC1 downward displacement measurements of the antenna?












I asked David Benson about the existence of the surviving WTC1 core remnant and the inconsistency of that fact with an intact 'upper block' that he kept insisting upon within these collected quotes.


MT: "Can you please explain how such tall surviving sections of the core can exist with horizontal bracing still attached without the need the debris to go around it, not through it (hence a gaping hole up the middle of the debris distribution)?

David Benson answered:

"The west and north walls peeled away sufficiently rapidly that deebris tended to move west and north near the spire. Similarly, but to a lesser extent, to south and east. There actually wasn't a gaping hole, just less density and in particular no structural steel to break connections."

"As for the core punching through the roof, I conjecture this occurred when the upper mechanical floors and up to the roof encountered the greater resistance offered around floors 75--79, about 30 stories (about 110 meters) down. No air escaping through such a puncture will be separately observable in any of the photos, IMO."

from this post


Question 23: Within this comment does David Benson explicitly state that he believes the core 'punched through the roof' of the 'upper block'?

Question 24: In this statement does David Benson state that he believes no air excaping through the 'punctured roof' will be separately observable in any of the 'photos' (meaning visual evidence)?

"Better to call the section cushed, rather than compressed, as it is inelastic. It did contain, for the most part, the core columns; only a few were bypassed."

from this post


David Benson is describing 'zone B' when making this statement. He was referring to 'zone B' as being crushed rather then 'cushed' as he typed.


Question 25: WHen making this statement, was he under the impression that 'zone B' contained most of the core columns from the area above the crush front?

Question 26: When making this statement, does he give evidence that he was under the impression that only a few core columns were bypassed by the crush front?




Question 27: At any time, within these direct quotes by David Benson, does he give any indication that he does not sincerely believe that the WTC1 'upper block' did not remain essentially rigid from floor 102 upward until falling at least to the 25th floor?

Question 28: At any time within these quotes does David Benson show any comprehension that what is sometimes now called "ROOSD' could be applied to WTC1?

Question 29: At any time within these quotes does David Benson distinguish between the crush down, crush up model presented in BV and BL from the actual collapse progression mode of WTC1?

Question 30: Does David Benson, within these quotes, make multiple references to the Bazant and Le paper to describe the actual collapse mode of WTC1?

 

[JSanderO]

I have one more set of questions to which I will be referring through the remaining part of this train-wreck of a thread.
Question 30:

Does David Benson, within these quotes, make multiple references to the Bazant and Le paper to describe the actual collapse mode of WTC1?

I did not follow these discussions in on this or other forums and I have no intention of going back and reading them and determining whether/that some big mouths spout pretty lame things.

A cursory reading of Tom's quotes seem to reveal that some of the vocal "experts" were off. Why? I haven't a clue. It seems that there was some sort of mental disconnect from what can be seen and what they conceptualize about the event. Perhaps they were no looking closely enough as the vids, and so forth? Who know?

Most of them are gone from the discussion leaving rubbish in their wake. That seems clear. Why? That's a separate question. Hubris? No longer interested and not aware of what's happened since then in the "discussion"?

I suppose the important issue is to get the science/engineering correct. Why let some sort of false technical narrative remain? It doesn't change the "who did 9/11"... aspect of the event.

It does seem to stagnate the discussion. It does seem to make people who remain in the discussion act weird, mean spirited and childish.

I suppose this is how history is written.... lots of BS told and sold to be who buy it hook line and sinker.

 

[Dave Rogers]

A cursory reading of Tom's quotes seem to reveal that some of the vocal "experts" were off. Why? I haven't a clue. It seems that there was some sort of mental disconnect from what can be seen and what they conceptualize about the event. Perhaps they were no looking closely enough as the vids, and so forth? Who know?

But... but... some of them disagree with Major Tom! It's an outrage!

Dave

 

[ozeco41]

But... but... some of them disagree with Major Tom! It's an outrage!

Dave

Major_Tom has no intention of saying what his beef is OR stating an explicit claim. He seems determined to keep feeding ammunition to members here who want to attack him personally. The "questioning" or "JAQing" to put the burden of research onto others when he could simply state his claim is nothing more than taunting trolling. His intention seems to be to irritate rather than progress discussion of clearly enunciated claims.

And the main theme introducing M_T's recent lengthy list of questions goes to disagreements M_T had with David Benson in discussions which took place on The911Forum in 2008. The prima facie reality is that Benson was unquestionably wrong on the base foundations of his claims and Major_Tom much closer to reality if not spot on. I would need to check in detail to see how accurate each of them were - If we ever get round to serious discussion of the topic I will review that series of discussions AND the accuracy of the "BLGB" paper and present a brief summary.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

M T's beef is he is right the paper did not match the collapses though his observations, DBB is also right on the physics and the math, How can both be right?
I would tell you but that would spoil the fun.

I wouldn't want to do that.

Two rights and all wrongs makes a never ending argument.

 

[JSanderO]

Major_Tom has no intention of saying what his beef is OR stating an explicit claim. He seems determined to keep feeding ammunition to members here who want to attack him personally. The "questioning" or "JAQing" to put the burden of research onto others when he could simply state his claim is nothing more than taunting trolling. His intention seems to be to irritate rather than progress discussion of clearly enunciated claims.

And the main theme introducing M_T's recent lengthy list of questions goes to disagreements M_T had with David Benson in discussions which took place on The911Forum in 2008. The prima facie reality is that Benson was unquestionably wrong on the base foundations of his claims and Major_Tom much closer to reality if not spot on. I would need to check in detail to see how accurate each of them were - If we ever get round to serious discussion of the topic I will review that series of discussions AND the accuracy of the "BLGB" paper and present a brief summary.

What the motives for the people who write and offer ideas about 9/11 is hard to fathom. No one or few will explain WHY they are participating. Ozzie may have... I explained my motive is not to teach or debunk but to learn and satisfy my own curiosity. I examine to the best of my ability presentations people make to see if I can further my understanding.

++++

I don't know what Tom's motive is. He SEEMS to be concerned that there were some bone headed things said which were and continue to be accepted as "correct" and are the "conventional wisdom" and he apparently wants to ... correct the misconceptions and have those who perpetuated them in the past and continue to do so today to "eat crow"

The main trust of "his work" is careful observation... and trying to figure out the cause of what he observes. On the face not only is this logical... but how else could you explain an event if you didn't observe it or have data about the event? You can't.

I've raised the issue that the actual construction plans, specs and so forth ARE part of the data that should be carefully examined. Others seem to think it hardly matters as the must have buildings had to have been built soundly because they were approved, built and used and didn't fall until a really out of spec (series of) event(s) took place.

I personally find most of the calculations a too theoretical and a bit silly. We don't even have a reliable mass for the buildings!

Does it matter that the incorrect historical narrative be corrected?

Do we need the persons who "led" the discussion off in the "wrong direction" to take some blame? or at least admit WHAT they did?

It takes a big pair to write one of these "papers" which sound all academic and wise... Seems as if all of them / most of them / many of them are not helpful and some of these presentations are almost "insane"...

If you don't LOOK you can explain... and LOOKing is not enough..,. You have to understand what you are looking at.

 

[ozeco41]

I have one more set of questions to which I will be referring through the remaining part of this train-wreck of a thread. The questions are once again carefully chosen to allow anyone with a sincere interest in the subject of the Bazant papers on the WTC collapses published from 2007 to the present to see these papers for what they really are...

Major_Tom - You refer to "this train wreck" of a thread. I agree it has a sad history. BUT you post some 30 questions referring to discussions you had with D Benson in 2008 on The911Forum.

What are you trying to claim?
What is the relevance of your disagreement with D Benson on The911Forum?

Sure the discussions on The911 forum show that Benson has little if any understanding of the mechanics of WTC Twin towers collapses. Back in 2008 lots of people shared the same confusions. He like many others in those years was confused between the Bazant ans Zhou assumed model for the "Limit Case" and the real event. He was also confused by the "crush down/crush up" reasoning which followed pursuit of Bazant's 1D simplifications in later papers.

So Benson was wrong. And his errors probably reflect in his contribution to the BLGB paper - THAT is the target you should be addressing. Directly. Not by round about character and credibility attacks on the person's work expressed on another forum. He was wrong and the BLGB paper is wrong on the same key points.

Those of us who understand why Benson was wrong don't need the tedious exercise of referring to his errant claims on another forum.

Those of us who may still share the same errant confusions will not be persuaded by such a tedious process of review.

The facts you seek to assert are simple:
1) Benson did not understand the mechanisms of WTC Twin Towers collapses;
2) Bazants 1D simplifications and "column crushing" mechanism - which were conceptually valid for the B&Z 2002 "Limit Case" claim - did not apply "literally" to the real event of WTC collapses which occurred on 9/11;
3) The most that some members here may still support seems to be that the 1D mechanism assumptions could in some way be a valid approximation. Those claims have nor been either clearly enunciated OR supported by reasoned argument;
4) The extension of 1D approximation into the concept of "crush down/crush up" probably had validity for building strictures with close column spacings. It is demonstrably false if applied to WTC Twin Towers 9/11 collapse. It did not happen. Crush down of lower tower and crush up of top section occurred at the start of progression and both happened concurrently.

So why the round about way of claiming via a lengthy attack on Benson's credibility? He was wrong. The relevant issues for this thread are the discussions in this thread and any reliance placed in this thread or on this forum on the errors in the BLGB paper.

That paper and all the Bazant papers which followed B&Z were wrong when they applied 1D approximations literally to the progression stage of WTC Twin Towers collapses as if those were the actual mechanisms.

Claims in those papers which may rely on the Bazant 1D modeling being "good enough for approximation" are at best unproven because the "good enough" premise has not been supported by legitimate argument.

Why do you persist in complicating the situation?

Why not simply address the relevant and significant facts?''

 

[DGM]

Why not simply address the relevant and significant facts?''

Because "gotcha" is more important?

Funny, I never read any of the Bazant papers after the first.

Has MT actually supported his claim of a cover-up of design error?

 

[ozeco41]

M T's beef is he is right the paper did not match the collapses though his observations,

M_T is right on that assertion - and it does not need the qualifier.

DBB is also right on the physics and the math,

He may be but it is irrelevant. Recall my assessment of T Szamboti's work in my first Internet forum post:

The paper referenced as Engineering Reality by Tony Szamboti is typical of many which look impressive in detail to the non-engineer. The complex calculations may even be correct but the base premises are faulty and the resulting conclusions can readily be demonstrated to be totally wrong.

Benson's calculations may be correct. His starting premises are wrong. He doesn't understand the mechanism - same error as Szamboti made with "Missing Jolt".

How can both be right?

Simple! easy! They are talking about different things. Don't fret over it - recall the "Gorilla in the Room" trick used in training for perception. Nobody sees it. They are focused on other things.

I would tell you but that would spoil the fun.

Wouldn't matter - no one would believe you. "They" will claim "there is no Gorilla in the Room". Live with it.

Two rights and all wrongs makes a never ending argument.

I'm not sure of the relevance or analogy in that. But there is no doubt that these discussions continue in circles. When most on both sides actually agree on the key facts but dare not admit it because it would spoil the game.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

M_T is right on that assertion - and it does not need the qualifier.

He may be but it is irrelevant. Recall my assessment of T Szamboti's work in my first Internet forum post: Benson's calculations may be correct. His starting premises are wrong. He doesn't understand the mechanism - same error as Szamboti made with "Missing Jolt".
Simple! easy! They are talking about different things. Don't fret over it - recall the "Gorilla in the Room" trick used in training for perception. Nobody sees it. They are focused on other things.
Wouldn't matter - no one would believe you. "They" will claim "there is no Gorilla in the Room". Live with it.
I'm not sure of the relevance or analogy in that. But there is no doubt that these discussions continue in circles. When most on both sides actually agrbee on the key facts but dare not admit it because it would spoil the game.

No Ozeco41, Benson is right about the Homogeneous mass should form given the forces of
Gravity, Structural, and air resistance.

The question is why M T's observations, and mappings show it never formed, could all be
Missing something right before their eyes?

Two other sources of energy that disrupt the Homogeneous mass and allow for ROOSD?

 

[ozeco41]

Because "gotcha" is more important?

So true - and it is two sided. Note that no-one other than Sander and maybe Crazy are prepared to accept the clear statement of the facts that I posted as a challenge to both sides at Post #2700.

"They" - both sides - probably don't see it - yet - but there is very little difference - if any - between what M_T says on the technical issues and what the opponents say. And both sides persist in being non-specific otherwise they couldn't maintain the sham of disagreeing. The excuse for all the personal sniping would evaporate if both sides would drop the vague imprecision and say specifically what they mean.

Funny, I never read any of the Bazant papers after the first.

I did back in 2010 when pgimeno sort of challenged me with that "Applicability of Bazant" thread. They are hard to read - goes with being academic papers - but actually say very little. They are wrong where they apply the B&Z column crushing model to the real event. That much clear cut. The main problem - the bane of engineers in RL - is that they rush into the maths before they work out WTF they are talking about. Szamboti made the same error with Missing Jolt. In fact it is the same core error persisting for both sides.

The only possible argument for validity that I can see is that the 1D model may be "good enough" for an approximation. If they claim - rely on - that premise they need to prove it and - put simply - they haven't. And I won't accept any academic as authority when he rests on unproven assertions which on the face are simply wrong. That is where much of the disagreement with me comes. Others take Bazant on face value. I wont. I'll also back my judgment BUT I would need to back off if anyone was game to and succeeded in validating those doubtful premises.

Has MT actually supported his claim of a cover-up of design error?

Naughty - don't give him the derail evasion tracks.

 

[DGM]

Naughty - don't give him the derail evasion tracks.

I couldn't help it, he blew it off when I called him out on it.

Maybe I need to write a book to show his revisionism?

 

[ozeco41]

No Ozeco41, Benson is right about the Homogeneous mass should form given the forces of
Gravity, Structural, and air resistance.

Your loyalty to Benson noted.

I'll rank what actually happened over academic postulations of what should have haopend but didn't actually occur any day.

I would need a very good argument to persuade me that the clear daytime sky is not blue when looking out the window the evidence of blueness is right there in front of me.

The question is why M T's observations, and mappings show it never formed,* could all be Missing something right before their eyes?

*STOP right there. If observation shows it never formed THEN;
Whether or not it was M_T's observation is irrelevant. Please don't engage in the JREF trick of claiming that something is correct when "they" see it BUT wrong when M_T, femr2, ozeco41 says it.
THEN - if it was observed - the "missing something" doesn't follow. So you had better be specific as to what you are trying to assert,

Two other sources of energy that disrupt the Homogeneous mass and allow for ROOSD?

..and please!! No truther logic!! IF you have a relevant counter claim then make it. BUT don't attack a coherent overall argument with bits of out of context anomalies.

 

[ozeco41]

I couldn't help it, he blew it off when I called him out on it.

I would have called him on the "lie by innuendo" first - before the substance of the lie. Different tactics.

Maybe I need to write a book to show his revisionism?

You could make it a series. Book #2 could be on the evasions of reality and personal attacks from debunkers - read the first page of this thread and see who started the name calling.

Then the resurgence of activity last year The same lies were being repeated. And 3 or 4 times I challenged the pack to respond to MT's technical claims and drop the personal attacks.

No way - because at that time on the three technical points and one procedural historic assertion he was right. And truthers can never be right as we both know.

I drive school buses - retirement hobby job.

"Freddy - did you hit Bob?"

"He hit me first"

"We can talk about him later - did you hit Bob?"

"err...err..yes Eric"

He did it first or he does it too are not defenses. Even primary school kids know that. Works both ways.

 

[DGM]

I would have called him on the "lie by innuendo" first - before the substance of the lie. Different tactics.

Noted. Fact remains the same.

Even primary school kids know that. Works both ways.

As seen I have not "published" this book.

 

[ozeco41]

Noted. Fact remains the same.

Sure but it is an implied fact creating room for deniability. And imposing on you as plaintiff the burden of proving "intent". Which was probably the intention. Now: If we can prove that he intended to intend it....

....mmmmm

As seen I have not "published" this book.

Which raised the issues of the psychology of the identifiers of the psychology of the reporters of the psychology of the discussers...


Infinite regress? Till you disappear up your own fundamental....

 

[DGM]

Sure but it is an implied fact creating room for deniability. And imposing on you as plaintiff the burden of proving "intent". Which was probably the intention. If we can prove that he intended to intend it....

....mmmmm [qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/scratch.gif[/qimg]

I don't think so. His claim still remains the same. That being, there was a design flaw that no one to date has taken credit for or has been made accountable.

Which raised the issues of the psychology of the identifiers of the psychology of the reporters of the psychology of the discussers...


Infinite regress? Till you disappear up your own fundamental....

I prefer to just focus on the claim he made a bit back.

 

[ozeco41]

I don't think so. His claim still remains the same. That being, there was a design flaw that no one to date has taken credit for or has been made accountable.

You win. That comment stand alone does rank as a claim - independent of the implied linkage to the body of the post. (I'm running on memory)

DGM 1 Ozeco 0

I prefer to just focus on the claim he made a bit back.

...you mean you want to be SERIOUS?

 

[DGM]

...you mean you want to be SERIOUS?

not against you........that requires way too much thought for a Friday night.

MT on the other hand. I just think it's funny how he points out flaws in other peoples claims but fails to support the few he actually makes.

 

[ozeco41]

not against you........that requires way too much thought for a Friday night.

Saturday AM 0827 Kilo - I'm carrying a handicap - two grandsons keeping me occupied.