Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
If this thread is only about the ROOSD collapse mechanism AFTER initiation then it has no business being in the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories section as others have said previously.
OOS Collapse Propagation Model
- Thread starter Major_Tom
- Start date
- Status
If this thread is only about the ROOSD collapse mechanism AFTER initiation then it has no business being in the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories section as others have said previously.
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
Why not ozeco? In the beginning of this very thread, MT states the following statements.
This ROOSD thread discussion, according to MT above, is the precursor to discussing whether CD was in play or not. How much time does MT need to start discussing CD applications? It's been over 4 years now.
Has this second paper been released yet? I apologize if I missed it.
So now that people here agree (including me) that MT's ROOSD mechanism is applicable to the tower's collapse, now what? When do we focus on the CD question?
MT's past writings are VERY important to the collapse mechanism AFTER initiation because he wrote the following:
Since it seems that the post above deals with core columns being severed throughout the collapse event including AFTER initiation, then I want to know. Does MT still believe that core columns were severed from one another DURING the ROOSD mechanism using some form of controlled demolition?
ozeco41
Philosopher
Well I disagree with:
A) your strawman "If this thread is only about the ROOSD collapse mechanism AFTER initiation";
B) the inference that it somehow arose from my statement; AND
C) the false consequence of "then it has no business being in the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories section".
Would you please desist from implying that I said something which quite clearly I did not say AND refrain from quoting me if you have no intention of commenting on what I said.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Because this current discussion on this thread arose from another thread which featured recent continuing emotive personal attacks between Major_Tom and tfk. In those exchanges tfk ridiculed what M_T refers to as his OOS model and the related process he calls ROOSD. Other members joined in denying the truth of the mechanism which M_T describes as "ROOSD". My focus was in rebutting those claims without joining in the interpersonal conflicts.
I am aware of a history of attacks directed at M_T based on his earlier claims pro CD from persons who also seek to deny the truth of what he calls ROOSD whilst at the same time not denying that mechanism when I or other members support it. I do not agree with that hypocrisy.
Not my interest. He is not discussing CD in these recent posts. Some members have falsely commented on OOS and ROOSD Those false comments are the focus of my statements. If M_T ever decides to claim CD I may respond. He isn't claiming it at present.
Last edited:
How can anyone see a CD component in the ROOSD mechanism(s)... they are simply the best fit description of the collapse process post initiation... This is like analyzing a car crash damage without considering the causes which let to the collision... such as skidding on an oil slick... or a stuck gas pedal.. or falling asleep at the wheel.. or texting when driving.
ROOSD is about the crash process not what cause the cars to collide. And frankly why does it a concern as to what someone thinks about the cause... when all they are doing is isolating the collapse process?
This is the same sort of thinking which prevents reason arguments from being considered on their merits and poorly reasoned ones from "experts" to be accepted because of the credentials of the expert.
9/11 is as much about a crisis in thinking as it is about anything else.
ROOSD is about the crash process not what cause the cars to collide. And frankly why does it a concern as to what someone thinks about the cause... when all they are doing is isolating the collapse process?
This is the same sort of thinking which prevents reason arguments from being considered on their merits and poorly reasoned ones from "experts" to be accepted because of the credentials of the expert.
9/11 is as much about a crisis in thinking as it is about anything else.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
I myself haven't questioned the validity of what MT calls ROOSD, and I agree with JSO that it doesn't require CD. However I don't think MT can progress in his discussion until he adresses his most major, IMO, objector, who is a Truther. As long as he keeps picking old debunker scabs, he looks, smells, and feels like a Truther. I don't give a hoot myself, what he looks like in the 9/11 Conspiracy Forum, I just care to use any truths he might tell. I'm just saying that if he goes poking sticks in the bees nest, without even trying to gather any honey, well just expect 13 more years of circle jerking.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Progress? We don't need no stinking progress
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
My objection stem from the fact that he appears to be claiming as new and his the same stuff the engineers and physics-educated folks here derived back in 2001...
That sounds like rubbish... please identify the people who proposed a ROOSD mechanism in 2001.
You sound clueless... but maybe you just seem that way. ;-)
ozeco41
Philosopher
He is his own worst enemy when it comes to being clear.
...but being equally unclear in opposing him doesn't help.
I'm not aware of what "folks here" derived in 2001 - I was not aware that the forum went back that far. When I joined this forum in 2009 the understanding of the progressive collapse stage for WTC1 & 2 was distinctly a mix of valid and not valid Bazant based concepts. There was no sign of anyone explaining the actual collapse mechanisms - all focus was on the columns in line "levels crushing" concepts derived from Bazant and in most cases extended way beyond the validity of Bazant's assumptions.
For example I recall numerous energy based quantifications which showed that velocities approaching whatever proportion of free fall were to be expected. BUT those quantifications were based on columns being crushed which did not happen. Classic examples of "getting the right answers for the wrong reasons".
Various degrees of scorn were applied to anyone who dared to say that Bazant's work (other than limited case energy claims ONLY) had zero application to what really happened.
Put very simply do you, now in 2014, hold that the collapses of both WTC1 and WTC2 progressed by the crushing of columns as required by the Bazant "limit case" from B&Z 2001-2?
If you don't you agree with M_T, myself and a significant body of minority opinion. And it is not a false dichotomy. If you hold that columns were crushed as per Bazant you align with those who are still ridiculing M_T on that specific point. They also are in effect claiming "columns were crushed". They are wrong.
Too much of a hurry to criticise M_T's offensive style and self stroking ego. So they miss the baby in the bathwater. He is right on that one point.
He wasn't the only one to describe it. He wasn't the first. But none of that "I was first ego and swelled head" stuff matters. The fact that he implies that he and only he "discovered" is wrong. So what? The false implied claim of being the first and only doesn't make the technical fact wrong.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Like the "book", a goal free detailed study of tower collapse after initiation, a detailed study of JREF.
Can't see the gravity collapse through the sea of CD woo.
When did the author of the "book" figure out the WTC collapsed due to impacts and fire, and collapsed as they would due to their structure, a gravity collapse - (which the chief structural engineer figure out in the 60s and 70s) - what a load of BS from someone who can't figure out 911 after 13 years, is the best work "just-plain-" BS.
Was it thermite or silent explosives - where does 911 truth find product free thermite, and no blast effects explosives? What does the "book" say? Is Blockhead in the book?
Last edited:
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
Look up "clunky clunk" for some ancient discussions. Also pancake...Thanks Sander. My explanation a bit longer so we crossed in the post.
I'll try to dig some of that stuff up when I'm at a real computer...
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Actually I believe it was FEMA. The original "pancake theory" was more or less the same thing after initiation.
The thing is, by the time ROOSD came around, everyone had moved on and the only people talking about it were people, "debunking" the "truther" claims.
I can't remember how many times we explained that the floors "pancaked" down only to have to also explain that NIST dismissing it was only for initiation. I even talked to Gage about it (real early on) and had him say to me that I needed to talk to NIST because they dismissed it. They never did, the also never went that far.
So, rwguinn is right. The progression was understood but, the "truthers" had poisoned the well so bad no one really bothered to discuss it anymore. 2006/8 included many discussions mostly dealing with "free-fall".
The "clunkity-clunk" was quite funny.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Thinking back. It might have been before that. PBS had a special on it late in 2001.
Some of it was wrong (mostly the initiation) but after that, "pancaking floors" was the rule.
Actually I believe it was FEMA. The original "pancake theory" was more or less the same thing after initiation.
The thing is, by the time ROOSD came around, everyone had moved on and the only people talking about it were people, "debunking" the "truther" claims.
I can't remember how many times we explained that the floors "pancaked" down only to have to also explain that NIST dismissing it was only for initiation. I even talked to Gage about it (real early on) and had him say to me that I needed to talk to NIST because they dismissed it. They never did, the also never went that far.
So, rwguinn is right. The progression was understood but, the "truthers" had poisoned the well so bad no one really bothered to discuss it anymore. 2006/8 included many discussions mostly dealing with "free-fall".
The "clunkity-clunk" was quite funny.
The concept of pancakes was wrong... the floor plates did not drop as large square doughnuts one by one. I don't want to go back about that the first explanations were... but ROOSD does not require the floors to be destroy over the entire footprint at once... it is simple the concept the a dropping mass will overwhelm the local are of the floor system... and then repeat. Some areas led others but the entire floor area was destroyed and each bit dropped down with what fell upon it. The open office design had no means of isolating the destruction between facade and core... which was either 59' or 35' and so rather quickly the entire floor plate was shattered and dropped in chunks which became an avalanche of increasingly larger and more densely packed finer grain sized material. Dropping pancakes would not grind the floors and contents into almost dust and mostly sand sized grains.
So the pancake theory was hooey except that it relied on gravity to move the floors downward. Well DUH...
ozeco41
Philosopher
Sure. I'm familiar with all the history of confusion - otherwise I wouldn't even bother addressing the old confusions which seem to be re-appearing.
Simplest place I know to comprehend the state of understanding here on JREF in 2010 is the thread:
Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world
It is a long read but worth the effort IMO. And I was one of the key players. In fact read the OP - it was a politely expressed challenge to ME to prove the sort of things we are now recycling four years later.
The sad aspect about these recent comments from my perspective is the strong reversion to the earlier confusions by members who I would have expected to be clearer.
Bottom line is there is no real controversy - what
I describe as the three mechanisms:
Mechanism #1 pancaking down the OOS floor space "tube"; << That one is the centrepiece of what M_T labels "ROOSD"
Mechanism #2 Perimeter peels off;
Mechanism #3 Strip down of core beams and core columns topple (plus some complexities).
That, in whatever words it is described, will be agreed as the explanation of the real event by most people. And trying to "mix and match" it with misapplied Bazantian explanations in order to maintain "Bazant was always 100% correct" will simply not work.
It is just disappointing to see that most of the pedantic care we took in 2010 to clarify the boundaries has been lost.
AND those who persist in ridiculing M_T (plus me because I say the same thing - plus you ditto) simply do not comprehend that the person they deride as a truther happens to be right.... on this one issue.
It is what femr2 and I have been calling "blue sky syndrome" since about 2010. If ever a truther makes the claim "The cloudless daytime sky is blue" the anti truther debunkers will pile on the heap denying the truther claim. We even made a smilie for it:
Last edited:
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
And we explained that also--Pancake was a misnomer--essentially an analogy the "is a perfect explanation of what happened, but is wrong in every particular", as it were. Unfortunately, the archives do not go back very far, here, and the MA changed in 2003, making us all re-register, so I can't dig up any of that occasionally hilarious exchange that went on back then.
There was much discussion of the very long vertical beams that stayed up for quite a while whilst the structure went away around them (visible in many of the pictures at the time)--yes, they buckled--but the floors were already gone
the "ROOSD" hypothesis is just the truthers discovering (yes, they are correct) what was explained to them a decade or more ago.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Odd you mention this because I doubt anyone would think they would.
Bottom line. There really has been no serious discussion about this in over 5 years. The "truth" movement chased away most if not all serious discussion. You can only argue with crazy people for so long. Notice this is never brought into an engineering forum. Why do you think that is? (it actually was many years ago).
Question. How many structural engineers can you name that have given this topic any notice in the last 5 years?
"Thuthers" and their moronic ways destroyed any worthwhile discussion.
- Status