OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[Dave Rogers]

Consider the second point:

2. The closest there has ever been was a belief that only explosives would cause collapses like that.

I'd say this is wrong. The strongest hint that CD occurred on 9-11-01 is that WTC7 fell as if it's columns turned into cooked linguini.

Actually, it fell as if its columns had collapsed low down in the structure, and as if an initial phase of the collapse had been a multi-storey buckle across about seven storeys. Cooked linguini would have fallen significantly faster; we know that there was significant structural resistance to the collapse of WTC7.

Carlitos, does the quote function in this forum allow a person to quote individual sentences within a post? If so, let me know how. Quotation marks " " have been a standard in literature for a long, long time. Let me know why quotation marks, found in pretty much any book, don't work for you and I'll try to adjust.

It's simple enough to quote individual sentences by simply cutting out the rest of the post. Multiple quotes from a single post can be separated out by cutting and pasting the quotation tags to enclose any section of the post that you want to separate out.

The reason quote marks are good enough in literature is because, in conventional writing, it's much easier to structure the writing so as to clarify who said what. In the rather more immediate and interactive style used on this forum by everyone including you, it's very difficult to follow which comments come from which poster if the only form of discrimination is quote marks. The quote function makes it much clearer. For example, it should be very clear in this post that I've replied specifically to one statement of yours in my first paragraph, and to another in the second and third. Quotation marks are easily missed, whereas quote boxes are very obvious.

Dave

 

[BigAl]

Not at all. That's like you saying 1+1=2 is wrong, because 1+1+2=4.

The question is not so much "was there energy to account for the difference between the building standing at t-5sec and the debris pile?" but rather "how does one account for this and that along the way?"

One step at a time.

If a plate of spaghetti spills onto the floor, do you obsess on the nature of the pile and the way the strands arraigned themselves on the way down once you've figured out why the plate fell in the first place?

What you seek is theoretically impossible to calculate.

 

[femr2]

If a plate of spaghetti spills onto the floor, do you obsess on the nature of the pile and the way the strands arraigned themselves on the way down

Bizarre decision to compare a plate of spaghetti to a 110 story building full of people, BigAl.

once you've figured out why the plate fell in the first place?

Ah, well there are still serious questions about elements of initiation, core descent, ...

For example, do you know the actual rotational behaviour of the upper section of WTC 1, as opposed to the NIST suggestions ? That's such things as what amount of rotation ocurred before vertical drop ensued...or the rapid deformation of the upper block as opposed to the rigid modelling within BZetAl...

What you seek is theoretically impossible to calculate.

That rather depends upon what *this and that* are. What I seek is far, far from impossible to calculate. One problem is that too many folk, on all sides of the fence, have become so fixed and rigid in their viewpoints, that they react improperly to any discussion which does not fit within their pre-defined boundaries. Hopefully that will change, and much more accurate results can be drawn.

 

[D'rok]

I am reminded that within the entire body of work attributed to Plato, I have never seen Socrates say something like: "Hey, screw you, Buddy! Take a $#*@% leap!"

Instead he remains open to all views and courteous to all participants, inviting them to examine their own opinions for errors while freely admitting his own. Maybe for this reason the literature remains as a powerful example of civil discursive reasoning.

Just a brief interlude:

You are incorrect. Read the dialogue between Socrates and Callicles in Gorgias. In frustration, Socrates calls Callicles a stone curlew and a catamite. In other words, Callicles craps where he eats, and enjoys being buggered.

Nobody's patience with ignorance is infinite.

Carry on.

 

[bardamu]

Actually, it fell as if its columns had collapsed low down in the structure, and as if an initial phase of the collapse had been a multi-storey buckle across about seven storeys. Cooked linguini would have fallen significantly faster; we know that there was significant structural resistance to the collapse of WTC7.

The linguini around the perimeter was al dente but the linguini in the core was slightly overcooked.

 

[Carll68]

Not at all. That's like you saying 1+1=2 is wrong, because 1+1+2=4.

This Charlatan can not understand 8th grade physics, so therefor it is not a surprise he would make a insipid comment like the one quoted.

You see fraud, what we are looking for is the answer to 1+1. Not 1 + 1 + 'whatever other garbage you wish to throw in"

The sum of the parts equals the total.

You are trying to add stuff on, and disregard the initial equation results.


so to sum up:

Question: What is 1+1?
Answer 2

Troofer mode
1+1 is not = 2 because 1+1+1 +.5+.5 =4

Lack of any scientific evidence for a CD other than blind uneducated belief that the towers would only collapse with the aid of explosives/CD (1) combined (+) with Bazants accurate, detailed and scientific and factual work showing the buildings would (and in fact, did) collapse without a CD (1) = No need to discuss CD (2).

I am sure this escapes you.

Should you have scientific, peer reviewed evidence of a CD, please present it immediately.

Do you? No? Why not?

 

[TraneWreck]

If anyone is interested, here's a Major Tom making more sense:

http://video.adultswim.com/the-venture-bros/live-by-the-ghost-die-by-the-ghost.html

"He doesn't want to do anything...except, that."

I think that sums up this thread.

 

[TraneWreck]

Just a brief interlude:

You are incorrect. Read the dialogue between Socrates and Callicles in Gorgias. In frustration, Socrates calls Callicles a stone curlew and a catamite. In other words, Callicles craps where he eats, and enjoys being buggered.

Nobody's patience with ignorance is infinite.

Carry on.

Yeah, Major Tom really picked a terrible example as Socrates was put to death for wandering around town ripping apart everyone's beliefs.

He was the first debunker, and people found the process of having their silly ideas decimated so uncomfortable that they made him drink hemlock.

Plato was just too good of a writer to call someone an *******. Read the Sophist if you want some smack-talk from 350BCE (note it's eerie applicability):

sophistry is a productive art, human, of the imitation kind, copy-making, of the appearance-making kind, uninformed and insincere in the form of contrary-speech-producing art.

 

[beachnut]

Not at all. That's like you saying 1+1=2 is wrong, because 1+1+2=4.

The question is not so much "was there energy to account for the difference between the building standing at t-5sec and the debris pile?" but rather "how does one account for this and that along the way?"

One step at a time.

Does Major Tom have an engineering degree? Do you? Why do you support the delusion of CD? Why?

 

[femr2]

Does Major Tom have an engineering degree? Do you? Why do you support the delusion of CD? Why?

One of these days you'll grow, and be capable of writing a message that doesn't include the word delusion. OCD if you ask me.

 

[beachnut]

One of these days you'll grow, and be capable of writing a message that doesn't include the word delusion. OCD if you ask me.

Your delusion of CD is pathetic; 8 years of failure and you want me to grow?

I earn my engineering degree in 1974, I flew heavy jet in the USAF and retired years ago after 28 years. When I grow up I want to be...

lol, I already grew up and now I can spot fraud; you and Major Tom are frauds on 911 and can't figure it out given the answers and over 8 years! Maybe one day you will grow and figure out 911; it took me days, it took Flight 93 Passengers minutes. What is stopping you and Tom?

I have to baby sit my grandsons who think your CD fraud is a delusion too.

Yes it must be OCD, look at my center channel.

oops, I don't clean up finger prints... darn... OCD is the best insult you can do and is indicative of your work on 911; weak. Keep up the good work OCD CD delusion person.
I see your CD delusion remains evidence free. That is a perfect record.

How is Tom's math coming on his paper?

 

[dafydd]

One of these days you'll grow, and be capable of writing a message that doesn't include the word delusion. OCD if you ask me.

So we can take it that you do not have an engineering degree?

 

[femr2]

Your delusion of CD is pathetic; 8 years of failure and you want me to grow?

I want proper answers to proper questions. NIST did a poor job when you actually decide to compare their conclusions to observables. Yes, grow, recognise the difference between those folk who run around GZ with banners spouting crap, and those who have reasonable unanswered questions.

I earn my engineering degree in 1974, I flew heavy jet in the USAF and retired years ago after 28 years. When I grow up I want to be...

You've clearly regressed then. I would say bitter old man, but that would be rude, so I won't.

lol, I already grew up and now I can spot fraud;

See, that's the funniest thing. Your inability to differentiate between folk with questions (or JAQ off as is the more normal insult) and those with a deliberate intent to deceive. I'm certainly not one of the latter, no matter how much you may choose to delude yourself otherwise.

you and Major Tom are frauds on 911

Nope. Researching some of the fine detail, and it's clear the *big wigs* got some major points badly wrong. Sad state of affairs.

and can't figure it out given the answers and over 8 years! Maybe one day you will grow and figure out 911; it took me days, it took Flight 93 Passengers minutes. What is stopping you and Tom?

Brick walls such as yourself, who cannot, or will not, look at the problems impartially. CC creep ? Right. Show me. NIST simulations ? So many fundamental errors. It's really not good. If someone can actually provide valid detail, fine, if not, JAQ until decent answers are provided. Ad infinitum if needs be.

Yes it must be OCD, look at my center channel.

lol. Time to update if you ask me. I only use Mackie gear myself. No offense, but if that's supposed to impress me, then, sorry, no. I hit the projector route a decade ago and never went back. Love 10ft TV.

When you have something constructive to add, that'll be great. Otherwise you're just yet another distraction.

 

[carlitos]

See, that's the funniest thing. Your inability to differentiate between folk with questions (or JAQ off as is the more normal insult) and those with a deliberate intent to deceive. I'm certainly not one of the latter, no matter how much you may choose to delude yourself otherwise.

Thanks for admitting that you are the former, then. Just asking questions is pathetic. What's your cohesive theory that better explains the day's events?

lol. Time to update if you ask me. I only use Mackie gear myself. No offense, but if that's supposed to impress me, then, sorry, no. I hit the projector route a decade ago and never went back. Love 10ft TV.

If I'm not mistaken, beachnut built that setup himself, and saved quite a bit of coin vs. your McIntosh audio gear.

 

[BigAl]

I want proper answers to proper questions. NIST did a poor job when you actually decide to compare their conclusions to observables.

What "observables"?

 

[beachnut]

I want proper answers to proper questions. NIST did a poor job when you actually decide to compare their conclusions to observables. Yes, grow, recognise the difference between those folk who run around GZ with banners spouting crap, and those who have reasonable unanswered questions. ...

You are the same as those who run around GZ. Go get an engineering degree. Most people can figure out 911 with a grade school education, you may need more help.

... You've clearly regressed then. I would say bitter old man, but that would be rude, so I won't. …

Once again a failed delusion based on zero evidence. You fit the bitter old man better as you spew delusional CD fantasy.

… See, that's the funniest thing. Your inability to differentiate between folk with questions (or JAQ off as is the more normal insult) and those with a deliberate intent to deceive. I'm certainly not one of the latter, no matter how much you may choose to delude yourself otherwise. …

Why have delusions about your delusions?

… Nope. Researching some of the fine detail, and it's clear the *big wigs* got some major points badly wrong. Sad state of affairs. …

I have read your posts all over the Internet, you spew woo. You are not researching. A competent researcher would have figured out 911 in days. 8 years and you can’t prove the big wigs got major points wrong. You seemed to be biased about something. What does big wig have to do with Tom’s paper?

… Brick walls such as yourself, who cannot, or will not, look at the problems impartially. CC creep ? Right. Show me. NIST simulations ? So many fundamental errors. It's really not good. If someone can actually provide valid detail, fine, if not, JAQ until decent answers are provided. Ad infinitum if needs be. …

Are you sure these are in Tom’s paper? Did you read the paper?

… lol. Time to update if you ask me. I only use Mackie gear myself. No offense, but if that's supposed to impress me, then, sorry, no. I hit the projector route a decade ago and never went back. Love 10ft TV. … .

Sorry, my projector is bigger. My quad amp center channel is only part of my system. I am teaching my grandkids to think and not ask questions;

you are still asking questions on an event solved in days; and you are not converging on the solution. Sad someone with a 10 foot screen can't figure out 911. I have been watching >10' screens privately since the 70s, so you are behind, I grew up long ago. If you were impressive you would figure out 911. Recording 12 shows at the same time with >15Tb storage is not impressive, it is reality. Does your center channel have over 5 cu feet, 7 speakers and 4 dedicated amplifiers? If you and Tom would spend as much time figuring out 911 as I did building stereos and computers you would not have delusions after 8 years. Are you an engineer? The sad part is you don't need to be an engineer to understand 911, my education was extra credit.

… When you have something constructive to add, that'll be great. Otherwise you're just yet another distraction.

Sure, like you had something to say about Tom’s paper, how constructive you are today. Solve 911 yet?

I want proper answers to proper questions. ….

Then you need to stop asking questions and answer them yourself. Go back to school your failed ideas on 911 are massive, your questions continue; try answering them correctly yourself.

 

[femr2]

Once again a failed delusion...

Yada, yada. When you have something constructive to add, by all means drop by. Wasting your surely very precious time otherwise methinks.

 

[femr2]

Thanks for admitting that you are the former, then. Just asking questions is pathetic. What's your cohesive theory that better explains the day's events?

There is no definitive explanation of initiation. NIST most certainly got the details of WTC 1 initiation quite badly wrong. Perhaps you can correct them.

Little but questions in your posts. Pot ? Kettle ?

If I'm not mistaken, beachnut built that setup himself, and saved quite a bit of coin vs. your McIntosh audio gear.

Ten years ago maybe. Great stuff. Was intended to impress I'm sure, but haven't seen a VCR in so long. Quite nostalgic. Oh, and speakers should be heard and not seen. Is like guys that buy cars with really long bonnets.

Constructive input and progression please.

 

[femr2]

What "observables"?

Listed a few earlier. Patience. Once the old Bazant hoo-ha has been sorted out and agreed upon, I'm sure the goal-posts can be adjusted.

 

[funk de fino]

There is no definitive explanation of initiation. NIST most certainly got the details of WTC 1 initiation quite badly wrong. Perhaps you can correct them.

Should be quite easy for a genius like you to prove it then.

Constructive input and progression please.

That would be a waste of time. You're just another flavour of ignorance that infests the 911 discussion.