OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[carlitos]

please read for comprehension

There is no definitive explanation of initiation.

"The day's events" > "initiation"

Why are you working in a vacuum? Do you acknowledge the vast array of documentary, physical and audio / video evidence of what happened?

 

[beachnut]

Is anyone else interested in wasting any more of their time with this? I'm not. Femr2 is asking for evidence of things that happened IN THIS VERY THREAD. I'm not going to play that game.

Major_Tom wants to argue against a strawman Bazant. Repeated quotes from the paper (some of which he has provided) doesn't seem to persuade him that he is looking at the papers wrong. He also wants to say that he's the first person to come up with the idea of the columns not hitting each other. Here's a post by PhantomWolf from my very first thread on this forum:



That's May 2007. Before Major_Tom even joined this forum.

If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go off and do something more productive than talking with liars and boasters now.

Failure is attacking Bazant to support a failed paper; not a bright idea. After 8 years they are trying to back in CD.

 

[femr2]

"The day's events" > "initiation"

There is no definitive explanation of initiation.

 

[beachnut]

There is no definitive explanation of initiation.

You also make up lies and think Flight 77 did not impact the Pentagon, and you can't figure out Flight 93, or RADAR and 175. Your statements are based on fantasy. Major Tom's paper is not being supported by repeating your opinions. You like woo.

As you block the truth from being posted to your youtube nonsense on 911, you block real evidence and facts, and can't make rational conclusions on 911.

 

[TexasJack]

There is no definitive explanation of initiation.

Do you understand what this symbol, >, means?
So let me explain his post as simply as I can, the known evidence of the day's events is greater than knowing the collapse initiation. Geez.

 

[femr2]

There is no definitive explanation of initiation.

 

[R.Mackey]

Biggest lie I've seen a Truther utter in a long while.

 

[Dave Rogers]

There is no definitive explanation of initiation.

Could I suggest that you take a little time and compose a post listing exactly what significant observables the NIST report failed to explain, and therefore justify why the NIST model should not be considered definitive? You've made the unsupported assertion enough times now for us to accept that it's your personal opinion. Supporting facts would be a valuable next step.

Dave

 

[bardamu]

Could I suggest that you take a little time and compose a post listing exactly what significant observables the NIST report failed to explain, and therefore justify why the NIST model should not be considered definitive? You've made the unsupported assertion enough times now for us to accept that it's your personal opinion. Supporting facts would be a valuable next step.

Major Tom has already told you why he wants to deal with this later.

I agree with you that the true questions are in initiation and a couple of features of progression I'll introduce later, the topic of my second paper not yet released. If this first paper is not understood, we won't know where to focus attention to approach the CD question

 

[Dave Rogers]

Major Tom has already told you why he wants to deal with this later.

I was commenting on femr2's assertions rather than Major Tom's, so MT's statements aren't exactly relevant. But in any case, the tactic of "I refuse to present the second stage in my argument until everyone accepts the first" is a classic set-up for a gotcha. Several people here, I think, understand MT's first paper, whether or not they agree with it as a complete and accurate description of the propagation mechanism.

Dave

 

[femr2]

I was commenting on femr2's assertions rather than Major Tom's, so MT's statements aren't exactly relevant. But in any case, the tactic of "I refuse to present the second stage in my argument until everyone accepts the first" is a classic set-up for a gotcha. Several people here, I think, understand MT's first paper, whether or not they agree with it as a complete and accurate description of the propagation mechanism.

Dave

Am quite happy to state my issues with initiation, though this thread is not really an appropriate place to do so at this time.

There's a wealth of detail on initiation issues over at the911forum, and my first suggestion would be to browse there. Issues are not easily reduced into relatively short forum posts, but a very simple observation would be to highlight the large discrepency between the angle that NIST state the upper section of WTC 1 rotated through before vertical drop ensued, and the actual angle. Another topic would be the actual mechanism of IB. Another would be the ol' progressive tilt. The effect upon initiation between the NIST conclusions on such features, and other more probable scenarios is a main focus for me.

There is no *gotcha*, and no desire to deceive. The intent is to look at such features closely and either confirm who has it correct, confirm who hasn't, and determine how that affects initiation.

Do you have any issues with the described ROOSD mechanism itself ?

Anyone esle do ? If so, what ?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Issues are not easily reduced into relatively short forum posts, but a very simple observation would be to highlight the large discrepency between the angle that NIST state the upper section of WTC 1 rotated through before vertical drop ensued, and the actual angle.

Then could I suggest you actually make that observation, in full, rather than allude to it? What, in your view, was the discrepancy? What's your evidence that the discrepancy is a real difference rather than one of definition?

Another topic would be the actual mechanism of IB.

But the mechanism is a deduction, not an observable. What is the observable that NIST gets wrong?

Another would be the ol' progressive tilt.

Again, could you explain what that actually means; what was the observation, and what do you claim was NIST's error?

There is no *gotcha*, and no desire to deceive. The intent is to look at such features closely and either confirm who has it correct, confirm who hasn't, and determine how that affects initiation.

I wasn't applying the term 'gotcha' to you, but to Major Tom.

Do you have any issues with the described ROOSD mechanism itself ?

Taken as a complete decription of the collapse mechanism, it fails to consider the presence of the hat truss, which was more robustly constructed than the column structure below it and might be expected to survive long enough to cause considerable damage to the core below it; and it fails to reproduce the key observable that only a minority of the core columns were left standing at the conclusion of the penultimate stage of collapse. The second may well be a consequence of the first. So, while I think it describes aspects of the collapse, I think it's too self-contained and too simple to explain it fully. The implications of this on the remainder of Major Tom's reasoning is yet to be determined.

However, he said he wouldn't present the second stage until the first was understood, and I believe that condition to be met.

Dave

 

[femr2]

Then could I suggest you actually make that observation, in full, rather than allude to it?

As I said, there's a wealth of detail on the referenced topics at the911forum, and I don't think this thread is the right place to replicate that detail. See no reason why other threads cannot be started, but don't intend at this time to replicate the911forum content here. As MT suggested, there is intent to summarise such in additioal studies/papers (whatever you want to call them).

Taken as a complete decription of the collapse mechanism

It's not a complete description of the collapse mechanism, and that is made very clear. It focusses upon the open office space.

it fails to consider the presence of the hat truss

Due to the propogation rate of the ejecta fronts, and their vertical position regional splits, it is very improbable that the hat truss was involved in the propogation mechanism of the OOS destruction.

Am sure the hat truss had an effect upon the core, but the core is specidfically excluded from the study in order to focus on the OOS regions.

he wouldn't present the second stage until the first was understood, and I believe that condition to be met.

Am sure the intent is to gain general approval of the mechanism, call it review process if you like. Refine it. Get the math padded out. Prove the math. Parameterise the math such that a simulation can be run which closely matches observables, including timing. Don't think it's there yet.

 

[Dave Rogers]

As I said, there's a wealth of detail on the referenced topics at the911forum, and I don't think this thread is the right place to replicate that detail. See no reason why other threads cannot be started, but don't intend at this time to replicate the911forum content here.

It would make for more productive use of this forum if you could either summarise it so we can discuss it here, or stop alluding to it and leaving no substantive points to discuss.

Dave

 

[femr2]

It would make for more productive use of this forum if you could either summarise it so we can discuss it here, or stop alluding to it and leaving no substantive points to discuss.

Dave

As I said, I see no reason why other threads cannot be started, but do think it inappropriate to repeatedly suggest inclusion of detail here which is very specifically off topic.

I'll refrain from further metion of detail outside the bounds of ROOSD itself. Apologies to MT for the thread spam. Hope other posters can also remain on topic as much as possible.

 

[Dave Rogers]

As I said, I see no reason why other threads cannot be started, but do think it inappropriate to repeatedly suggest inclusion of detail here which is very specifically off topic.

I'm suggesting it because you've repeatedly stated that you have issues with the NIST report in this thread - I count six posts where you've mentioned this - so you're the one who raised the subject. Again: If you want a reasonable debate, either say what your issues are - and it would be perfectly appropriate for you to start a thread to do so - or stop vaguely alluding to them in a thread where by your own admission they're off-topic.

Dave

 

[Carll68]

I'm suggesting it because you've repeatedly stated that you have issues with the NIST report in this thread - I count six posts where you've mentioned this - so you're the one who raised the subject. Again: If you want a reasonable debate, either say what your issues are - and it would be perfectly appropriate for you to start a thread to do so - or stop vaguely alluding to them in a thread where by your own admission they're off-topic.

Dave

Dave...Femr does not even have an elementary understanding of physics which has been proven time and time again by it's inability to correctly answer simple High School level physics questions. It's pathetic. So all this back and forth it has engaged you in over the collapse mechanism and its issues with the NIST report is simply the words of a charlatan with no true goal or destination of finding the truth, but instead a goal of validating its uneducated position.

I have asked twice before in this very thread if anyone has any scientific peer reviewed evidence of explosives present during 9/11 in NYC's WTC complex. Not "It looks like a CD" or "It could only collapse if it was a CD"...because that belief without evidence has been scientifically proven an incorrect assertion by Bazants and others scientific studies.

I am asking again.

If you do, please bring it forward.

If you do not, then may I ask why?

Also, if you do not have any peer reviewed scientific evidence of a CD, then why in the locigal world do you ranting & raving loons continue to present this as the method of collpase?

 

[R.Mackey]

Dave...Femr does not even have an elementary understanding of physics which has been proven time and time again by it's inability to correctly answer simple High School level physics questions. It's pathetic. So all this back and forth it has engaged you in over the collapse mechanism and its issues with the NIST report is simply the words of a charlatan with no true goal or destination of finding the truth, but instead a goal of validating its uneducated position.

We already know... About a year ago he showed up here, all full of vim and vinegar, but soon revealed that he didn't even understand Conservation of Momentum, about the most fundamental physical law in the entire universe. Read the many, many replies it took to bring him around.

I guess he eventually figured this one out, but he failed to learn the more significant lesson: He needs to consult actual experts, as his own understanding is woefully inadequate.

This is no different. Nor will it be. Truthers love to dive into details, until they've reached a point of discussion sufficiently obscure that they can make believe everybody else simply doesn't understand their genius. Thinking they are "Galileo" or, in this thread, "Sherlock Holmes" is all too common.

 

[Dave Rogers]

We already know... About a year ago he showed up here, all full of vim and vinegar, but soon revealed that he didn't even understand Conservation of Momentum, about the most fundamental physical law in the entire universe. Read the many, many replies it took to bring him around.

Ah, now I remember. I wrote a fair number of them.

This, femr2, is why I want to know specifically what your problems with the NIST report are. Your problems with the conservation of momentum calculation turned out to be based on your own misconceptions; in particular, you believed that decelerating a moving body consumed energy, rather than releasing energy, and that the energy loss in an inelastic collision was a different quantity to the deformation energy of the colliding bodies. If your understanding of the NIST report is on the same level, then it's quite possible that you think you've spotted some glaring inconsistencies that are not in fact there.

It's your choice. If you want to learn something, say what you think is wrong with NIST's model, in very specific terms. Alternatively, you can go on thinking you're right about everything, but be aware that the price to pay is actually being right about anything.

Dave

 

[Newtons Bit]

We already know... About a year ago he showed up here, all full of vim and vinegar, but soon revealed that he didn't even understand Conservation of Momentum, about the most fundamental physical law in the entire universe. Read the many, many replies it took to bring him around.

I guess he eventually figured this one out, but he failed to learn the more significant lesson: He needs to consult actual experts, as his own understanding is woefully inadequate.

This is no different. Nor will it be. Truthers love to dive into details, until they've reached a point of discussion sufficiently obscure that they can make believe everybody else simply doesn't understand their genius. Thinking they are "Galileo" or, in this thread, "Sherlock Holmes" is all too common.

That's a really embarrassing thread for femr2.