OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[rwguinn]

If we set aside all the evasions and retrospective attacks on Major_Tom referring to past history the core facts are simple:

1) What Major_Tom describes as ROOSD is a valid technical explanation of the progression stages of WTC1 and WTC2 collapse.

2) The ROOSD component - collapse driven by material falling down the open office space - is the core element of how I described the collapses from 2007-2008 onwards. It was my putting into words what was clearly evident from the visual record. I was not aware of Major_Tom describing the same process until either 2009 or 2010.

Large numbers of us were stating that way back in September/October 2001...

It does not matter who came first or if anyone else was describing it that way in those days. Reality is that the technical concept was vehemently opposed by many here on JREF. The prevailing ethos here and on some other forums was that Bazant was 100% correct. That Bazant could never be wrong. And a lot of effort was expended twisting proofs to make them align with Bazant's ideas.

********.
The technically adept of us, including myself and numerous others stated that Bizant's analysis was a simplified modelthat merely showed that the collapse was possible and probable, all due to damage and gravity. Way back when. That got corrupted by troofers.

The sad aspect of all of it being that much of the debunker material was based on wrong interpretations of Bazant's work. Plus, later, bastardisation of WTC collapse analysis to make it fit "crush down/crush up" which never did fit the actual WTC 9/11 collapses.

Opposition to Major_Tom rarely if ever addressed the accuracy of his technical work rather was based solely on the categorising him as a truther and the nonsense JREF meme of those days that everything a truther says must be false. It is sad that even today many members cannot admit and move on from those infamous concepts.

Whether or not M_T at some stage in his career had posted pro truther statements AND whether or not he has since abrogated them does not affect in the slightest the technical accuracy of his collapse mechanism explanations based on collapse driven down the tube of the OOS.

The debunker position opposing that technical aspect of Major_Tom's claim is ridiculous. It is as if Major_Tom was to claim "the cloudless daytime sky is blue" the debunkers lined up to denounce "sky is blue" because it must be false because M_T said it and M_T was once a truther.

And I have been making that ridiculing "blue sky" comment for several years - search my posts for references to "blue sky" or "blue sky syndrome".

So the technical claim is true and tfk's denial of that aspect of technical claim is false.

I have no sympathy for Major_Tom's style of presenting - innuendo framed in pre-announce "gotcha trickery". He is his own worst enemy if he has any intention of making the technical point. ...and I see no merit in the implied claims that he was first or he was the only one to whom the truth has been revealed.

So attack style if you can find a legit way of doing it which accords with the spirit of the membership agreement. But drop the false claims that he is wrong on OOS led collapse.

It is not wrong. It is true when I say it. True when other debunkers say it. It cannot concurrently be false when M_T says it simply because someone can archaeologically quote mine some ancient claim by M_T that shows he was pro-truther.

M_T is trying to sell a book.

 

[DGM]

The technically adept of us, including myself and numerous others stated that Bizant's analysis was a simplified modelthat merely showed that the collapse was possible and probable, all due to damage and gravity. Way back when. That got corrupted by troofers.

That's what they do. They direct discussion to where they can make it last forever. The internet is the perfect place, you could find someone to argue that water is really plutonium and it's killing us all. People bite and continue the feeding.

M_T is trying to sell a book.

I doubt it. He just needs to show he is right and the world is wrong. Even if the world is agreeing in different words.

 

[jaydeehess]

Large numbers of us were stating that way back in September/October 2001...
********.
The technically adept of us, including myself and numerous others stated that Bizant's analysis was a simplified modelthat merely showed that the collapse was possible and probable, all due to damage and gravity. .

I only read one Bazant paper. In it he estimated that the force on the next lower level after collapse initiation, would be 30X the force it could absorb.

In reading it I fail to understand how anyone could not comprehend that it contained multiple simplifications and was an approximation, not a direct literal model of what occured.

 

[Justin39640]

I doubt it. He just needs to show he is right and the world is wrong. Even if the world is agreeing in different words.

My book is almost done. It's called "You All Suck At Driving!" I'm just going to throw them at other motorists on the Long Island Expressway.

 

[DGM]

In reading it I fail to understand how anyone could not comprehend that it contained multiple simplifications and was an approximation, not a direct literal model of what occured.

What's your point?

Are you now agreeing he was clueless? What about the margin of safety that was built in? Why did "lucky Larry" say "pull it" (a known demolition term that every NYC developer would use).

<"truther mode">

 

[DGM]

My book is almost done. It's called "You All Suck At Driving!" I'm just going to throw them at other motorists on the Long Island Expressway.

I'm doing a big job in Jaffery, NH (about 55 miles each way). It takes me less time to go there than Everett, MA (about 12 miles). Funny how traffic works.

 

[jaydeehess]

Sewer and water upgrades have the main route from one side of my home town torn up. The detours have some people here just absolutely flummoxed. Its as if they don't understand either , how their world could change, or that a sign on an orange blockade, with the word "detour" and an arrow, could possibly be conveying relevant information.

Not to mention that this work has been discussed in the local paper, on the local TV station, both local radio stations, and posted on several websites including the city's website, for well over a year.

Its also a small city so there are a lot of drivers who never use turn signals because they've been driving here for many decades and everyone should know by now, they turn left at Main Street.

 

[jaydeehess]

Sewer and water upgrades have the main route from one side of my home town torn up. The detours have some people here just absolutely flummoxed. Its as if they don't understand either , how their world could change, or that a sign on an orange blockade, with the word "detour" and an arrow, could possibly be conveying relevant information.

Not to mention that this work has been discussed in the local paper, on the local TV station, both local radio stations, and posted on several websites including the city's website, for well over a year.

Its also a small city so there are a lot of drivers who never use turn signals because they've been driving here for many decades and everyone should know by now, they turn left at Main Street.

 

[DGM]

The detours have some people here just absolutely flummoxed. Its as if they don't understand either , how their world could change, or that a sign on an orange blockade, with the word "detour" and an arrow, could possibly be conveying relevant information.

We laugh every morning when we see "construction ahead, expect delays" on a road that might see a couple hundred cars an hour, tops (and we cruise on through). Try this with a few thousand. I'm loving the commute to the north.

 

[Reactor drone]

Key-Riest.......
NIST, in essence, agrees with Major Tom. Shall we all just take note of that for a few moments.

I'd probably phrase that the other way around given the timing.

 

[Major_Tom]

TFK, could you go into more detail about fatal flaws you've spotted.

Beachnut, I'd appreciate your input on issues with the OOS propagation model also and its relationship with Bazant's papers from 2007 onward.


Thanks.

 

[Major_Tom]

Just to remind TFK and Beachnut,

The OOS propagation model is based on 6 observable features of the WTC1 and 2 collapses:



1) Observed Behavior of WTC1 Core

2) Observed Motion of WTC1, 2 Perimeter Walls

3) Observed Behavior of the Crush Fronts

4) Observation of core and perimeter columns within the rubble

5) Pieces of flooring remain intact and people survive at the base of WTC 1

6) Appearance at the base of each tower after collapse


Do either of you have an issue with any of these collapse features?

 

[beachnut]

Beachnut, I'd appreciate your input on issues with the OOS propagation model also and its relationship with Bazant's papers from 2007 onward.


Thanks.

Was the WTC towers CD, or what? Does your book have a conclusion past the failed insult to people you can't name?

Did you prove the gravity collapse was an illusion?

Warning, some people attack engineering models due to ignorance.
Bazant's model, is math 911 truth can't do, can you. 911 truth does not do engineering, they do woo with conclusions they can't explain. Can you explain and make a conclusion; CD or no CD, that is the question to 911 truth followers - wait you are not 911 truth you have a book. You don't believe in classifying people...

...
Such a silly superficial way to think and classify people. (sigh)

Dave has been strongly influenced by blockheads. It could take some time before normal judgement and a sense of fairness and balance in debate returns.

This is funny, who are the blockheads?
Is it really silly to classify people? And the blockheads ... this was funny, ...

... show that the supposed "gravity-driven collapse" is a mere illusion ...

Is the book complete? Was the "gravity-driven collapse" an illusion? Do you still have those charges planted in your fantasy of CD?

 

[Major_Tom]

Warning, some people attack engineering models due to ignorance.
Bazant's model, is math 911 truth can't do, can you. 911 truth does not do engineering, they do woo with conclusions they can't explain.

Thanks. You've managed to put together one semi-coherent sentence on your views of Bazant's latter papers on the WTC collapses and the OOS collapse model.

Do you have any problem with the observations on which the OOS collapse model is based listed previously?

This is funny, who are the blockheads?

As the term was used previously I think TFK and yourself are giving a near perfect demonstration. This thread is full of demonstrations beginning on the very first page.

 

[beachnut]

Thanks. You've managed to put together one semi-coherent sentence on your views of Bazant's latter papers on the WTC collapses and the OOS collapse model.

Do you have any problem with the observations on which the OOS collapse model is based listed previously?





As the term was used previously I think TFK and yourself are giving a near perfect demonstration. This thread is full of demonstrations beginning on the very first page.

Your worthless model is BS. You have no goal, no purpose, nothing can be learned - the towers collapsed as they should, I cheated and looked at the plans. You can see why the towers collapsed why they did by the why they were built. Kind of makes your silly effort a big waste of time with no purpose. And you have no clue why.

And, as your posts demonstrates, you books only conclusion is a weak attack on others, again, no purpose. Keep up the good work.

Is the gravity collapse still an illusion?

At least you summarized your only conclusion from your book ...

As the term was used previously I think TFK and yourself are giving a near perfect demonstration. This thread is full of demonstrations beginning on the very first page.

Don't get upset, it is your model that is worthless, not you. Is the model the reason you can't explain if 911 was CD or not, you can't understand your work makes no difference?

Have you retracted the gravity collapse is an illusion? I remember when you brought your steel photos, and thought CD. What about now, in the 13th year, where is your evidence for an inside job? Gee, you can't explain why we need to study the collapse, no wonder CD has you baffled.

 

[JSanderO]

ROOSD is not about CD... it explains the collapse phase of the twin towers destruction. It premised on a threshold mass forming from the break up of the upper section which then drives down through the tower confined largely with the "cage" of the facade... destroying all floor slabs leaving both the facade and unbraced core columns too unstable to remain standing.

You could initiate ROOSD in a long span structure by dropping a bunch of AI Abrams tanks over the foot print.

ROOSD is the collapse phase not the initiating cause of the collapse.

 

[Gamolon]

Thanks. You've managed to put together one semi-coherent sentence on your views of Bazant's latter papers on the WTC collapses and the OOS collapse model.

Do you have any problem with the observations on which the OOS collapse model is based listed previously?





As the term was used previously I think TFK and yourself are giving a near perfect demonstration. This thread is full of demonstrations beginning on the very first page.

Do you still believe the material that was written within your website years ago?

Our researchers, being of diverse backgrounds and systems of belief, have one common vision and faith: That light is a power with which darkness cannot cope or contend (other than to try to put out the light).

Our single-minded purpose is to shine light on the details of the 9-11-01 attacks (our focus is on the WTC complex), carried out to cunningly pit man against his brother for the hidden purpose of massive theft.

We refuse to be stupified in a fog of mousy materialistic self-preservation and egoism so clearly evident in the "professionals" in the scientific and media communities originally assigned to investigate these crimes (professional, above all, at keeping their jobs and safety nets). I ask them this: How, in your souls, can you be such willing accomplices to such barbarism?

4) We are not interested in “being right” or forming anchored subjective views. We are solely interested in exposing the naked truth of the attacks by revealing recurring patterns of damage and
destruction, evidence of bomb attacks and other structural anomalies inexplicable in any way other than controlled demolition

5) We believe that sequences of systematic attacks on the most vital core box columns were key in demolishing the towers. After all, what conventional demolition company wouldn't make their attack on the strongest, largest load-bearing columns a top priority?

Our detailed analysis focuses on the tree, tree by tree if necessary, looking for recurring patterns and evidence of controlled demolition.

 

[Justin39640]

Do you still believe the material that was written within your website years ago?

Seriously. If this doesn't all add up to "inside job" then it's really in the wrong section (IMO).

 

[LSSBB]

Do you still believe the material that was written within your website years ago?

He won't answer that question, if how he responds to beachnut is any guide. He doesn't seem to realize that we all have seen him not answer such questions, and that it cntinuously undermines his message. Add that to the fact that he seems to only want to confront debunkers, and gives Tony a ride even though Tony openly discounts ROOSD.

 

[ozeco41]

ROOSD is not about CD... it explains the collapse phase of the twin towers destruction. It premised on a threshold mass forming from the break up of the upper section which then drives down through the tower confined largely with the "cage" of the facade... destroying all floor slabs leaving both the facade and unbraced core columns too unstable to remain standing.

Correct Sander - bar one nuance of detail which doesn't matter here.

The process which Major_Tom describes and labels as "ROOSD" is a factual description of what actually happened. It is a description of how the "progression of collapse" for WTC1 and WTC2 actually happened.

What I find disturbing/frustrating/sad is that several "debunker" members want to deny the process because Major_Tom:
a) Labelled it ROOSD; AND
b) Persists in writing in an insulting and irritating style.

Insults and irritating style aside the collapse mechanism is what happened. It does not become false or ridiculous because folks don't like M_T's style.

It is the same mechanism that I described before M_T labelled it ROOSD. Other members possibly did so also - it matters not how many or who was first. (Other than those who persist in claiming in hindsight to have always recognised the limits of application of Bazant when their current posted comments show that they are still missing the point and conflating two incompatible explanations.)

...You could initiate ROOSD in a long span structure by dropping a bunch of AI Abrams tanks over the foot print....

Picturesque but quite probably true.

ROOSD is the collapse phase not the initiating cause of the collapse.

Also correct - it is sad to note that, in 2014, we still see debunkers losing the plot - or forgetting which part of the plot we are talking about.

DISCLAIMER:
The topic is validity of the collapse model which Major_Tom labels "OOS" and the part that "ROOSD" plays in that model.

For purposes of this thread I have zero interest in what was posted by M_T on his website years ago. Or whether he still holds to certain "pro truther" comments also years old. If I were to suddenly come out in favour of CD it would not change the truth of the explanations of WTC Twin Towers collapse mechnaisms. And the fact that M_T labels them variously as "OOS" or "ROOSD" does not - cannot - make those explanations false.