Which "CD people"? Apart from some personalising of the arguments the discussion is about the "OOS Collapse Propagation Model" which is emphatically not CD and some discussion about the limits of Bazant's models which have been misapplied by "debunker" side posting members.
Since you seem to understand Major_Tom's objections to my statements about Bazant's papers, or at least feel that those objections have some measure of substance, maybe you can explain them to me. His own explanation is limited to quoting each of my requests for clarification as evidence that I am being deceptive.
In what way have I, or anyone else, "misapplied" any of Bazant's findings?
I have stated that as far as I can tell, Bazant's calculations do correctly describe the behavior of Bazant's own model, including the fact that in that model crush-down comes to predominate over crush-up early in the process, which was merely taken as an assumption in BZ and then shown to be internally predicted by the model itself in BV. Does Major_Tom disagree with that, and if so, what are those math errors?
I have also stated that as far as I can tell, the model in BV continues to embody the same key simplifying and limiting-case assumptions as in BZ -- namely, that all impact force acts directly upon the columns below and that all columns buckle. I know Major_Tom disagrees with that, but he will not cite any part of BV in which those assumptions established in BZ are retracted or contradicted, so I see no reason to change my views to conform to his. Maybe you can tell me what I'm missing?
Finally, I am not aware of having misapplied -- or even
applied at all -- Bazant's models to any real-world event. BZ's conclusions do agree with my own independently derived conclusions about collapse sustaining rather than arresting even in idealized (favorable to arrest) conditions, as it also agrees with Major_Tom's. Beyond that highly limited sense of "applied" (cited as an independent confirming view), I have not applied let alone misapplied Bazant's models at all, because I have never needed to.
For example, I have never stated or implied that the actual WTC tower collapses underwent clean separate crush-down then crush-up, nor does anything I believe or have stated about the events of 9/11 depend on separate crush-down crush-up being part of the scenario. Nor, to my knowledge, have the other members who have posted analysis of any depth. A large number of members post here so I can't say that no one has ever claimed something like "the upper block stayed intact all the way to the ground because Bazant said so" but it's certainly not a claim generally held by the rationalist (sorry, I mean "bee-dunker") side.
So as far as I can tell, Major_Tom's assertions that some members, and I specifically, have misconstrued and misapplied the limits of Bazant's models,
is merely a lie.
He will not say where I misapply Bazant's models. Instead, he points to posts like this one where I have attempted to address his objections and says, "see, he's still doing it." He repeats the lie.
Since you claim to understand his position, maybe you can explain why he is lying and repeating the lie. Is he lying for a reason, or just for fun? And if there is a reason, does he understand that lying
to me about
my own position is not likely to be successful in deceiving me, and in fact is instead rather foolish?
Respectfully,
Myriad
