Don't feel alone. Ozeco's logic escapes me also.
Tony your unwillingness or inability to follow simple logical reasoning is well established.
He insists that there cannot be a missing jolt in the North Tower, saying I am looking for it when the time for it to happen has passed...
Correct - that is your central error. With the proviso that I refer to the big jolt caused by a large falling object "landing" on something - your false starting assumption derived from your misapplication of Bazant's assumptions from Bazant & Zhou 2001-2. There would undoubtedly be many small jolts. The one you looked for could not exist for the simple reason that your starting premise - falling top block - is taken from an abstract model and does not represent what really happened in the actual event(s). You are not alone - many debunkers also are befuddled like you by false application of Bazantian assertions AND, unlike me, affeared of disagreeing with Bazant (or misuse of Bazant) despite the crime of lèse majesté having been removed from the statute Books. :lol:
Bear in mind that I am looking for it at first floor impact,...
Yes. Another perspective of the same error. You do not comprehend the essentially 3D nature of the cascade failure which comprised the "collapse initiation stage". Many debunker side researchers also fall for the trap. Look to the thousands of words wasted discussing "axial contact" and "tilt". When the simple reality is that for tilt to exist the opportunity for axial contact is gone. BTW "Missing Jolt" is merely a subset of the generic "axial contact" nonsense.
and the measurements of the Verinage demolitions in France show the deceleration we say should be there in a natural collapse.
your confusion is well documented across the internet:
The discussion is not about Verinage in France AND you seem to have the truther meme that there is some inherent difference between "natural collapse" and "CD initiated collapse". There ain't. Detailed explanations published several times. Drop your faith in false truther memes and put your engineering thinking into gear Tony. It ain't rocket science (either metaphorically or literally.
)
Now you descend to misrepresentation:
He also insists that the discovery of the pertinent structural features omitted in the NIST WTC 7 report collapse initiation analysis doesn't matter,[SUP]1[/SUP] as we can't know what the situation of the structure inside the building was, implying that the columns had moved etc.[SUP]2[/SUP] In other words, he supports the NIST fire did it theory without question[SUP]3[/SUP] and does not see a need to hold them accountable for omitting structural features which would have made their theory impossible[SUP]4[/SUP] .
Four claims there Tony which are almost certainly deliberate lies - you have been correctly advised many times.
1 False. I have said that you have not shown that they do matter. And it is your burden of proof to support YOUR claim. NOT my burden to prove you wrong.
2 False - same comment as above. The argument has moved on but that starting assumption AFAIK still has not been addressed.
3 False and a common truther lie of false generalisation. I never rely on NIST arguments. Have not done so from my first days on the internet. Specifically to avoid truther tricks of "switching objectives". Bottom line for WTC7 is that there is sufficient evidence to explain the central locus of collapse initiation in the vicinity of Col 79. And your claims incorporate several dishonesties about the place of Girder Walkoff within that overall setting. Other posters here and elsewhere have identified those dishonesties. You have not corrected them. Until you do your claims re WTC7 remain unproven.
4 You cannot know what my attitude would be until and if you ever prove (i) That NIST was wrong; AND (ii) that it mattered.
What Ozeco is saying in both of these situations, where serious problems have been shown with the fire did it natural collapse theories for WTC 1 and WTC 7, does not make any sense.
No matter how many times you deliberately repeat that untruth it remains untrue. Serious problems have not been shown. You may fool gullible people Tony. You will not fool me -- or will not fool me unless you lift your game of deception several grades. And I doubt even then.
However, he continues to say it with no concern about the clear illogic of the argument he is making.
Claim is moot because the initial premise "clear illogic" is wrong.
Stop being easily amazed. Start thinking like an engineer.
Jeffrey Orling's logic is often similar. He somehow believes he can get a symmetric collapse of WTC 7 from an asymmetric failure of transfer trusses, that the structural feature omissions in the NIST WTC 7 report are not important, and that the missing jolt in the North Tower has no significance.
The illogical arguments used by these two, and others defending the "fire did it" theories, remind me of the adjectives Dan Rather used after seeing WTC 7's collapse "amazing, incredible, pick your word". I think if it was in their interest these guys would deny the sun is hot.
I could carve up these leading lies by innuendo but I'll leave SanderO to look after his own. Your persistent false attribution of dishonesty on those who can out reason your nonsense does you no credit. I will not descend into the gutter with you.
