• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

OOS Collapse Propagation Model

Status
Not open for further replies.
DGM said:
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.
Click to expand...

I could care less who has given notice to the topic... pancakes are not what ROOSD is... It's a vertical avalanche of debris... no pancakes or tacos...
 
JSanderO said:
I could care less who has given notice to the topic... pancakes are not what ROOSD is... It's a vertical avalanche of debris... no pancakes or tacos...
Click to expand...
The above us exactly why I only check in at infrequent intervals, and why several of the competent engineers don't bother.
Reading for what's actually there is not a truther long suit..
 
A pancaking of debris, perchance?

I'm sure most sensible people understood the general mechanism in 2001. Just because there wasn't an obscure acronym for it doesn't mean the collapse was suspicious.
 
JSanderO said:
I could care less who has given notice to the topic... pancakes are not what ROOSD is... It's a vertical avalanche of debris... no pancakes or tacos...
Click to expand...
I'm glad to hear that you could actually care less. :rolleyes:

What was the exact vertical distribution?
 
Last edited:
Orphia Nay said:
A pancaking of debris, perchance?

I'm sure most sensible people understood the general mechanism in 2001. Just because there wasn't an obscure acronym for it doesn't mean the collapse was suspicious.
Click to expand...
That's true Orphia - as are most of the apparently opposing opinions being posted. (They are mostly partial truths which have lost the full context.)

I know the risks but I'll post a metaphor/analogy.

The core issue which started this recent spate of posts is a disagreement over the difference between apples and oranges when someone identified an apple (M_T, me et al) others had identified the same fruit as an orange.(tfk and those implicitly backing him whether they know it or not.)

Major_Tom says: (1) It was an apple and (2) apples are different to oranges. And he implies that he was the first one to notice it and the only one to explain it...personal ego stuff.

tfk said, in effect, you are silly M_T to claim that it is an apple because the god (AKA Z Bazant) correctly described it as an orange. You are also wrong to claim they are different because apples do not exist so cannot be different.

And I get into the mix because I didn't lose track of the initiating issue. So I agreed that apples are different to oranges, agreed with M_T's identification of apple and, may the god's of JREF forgive me, I explained why. Several times.

The responses fall into three main camps:

A) "They are all fruit" - implying that there is no difference between apples and oranges.

B) We understood 100 years ago that orange skin is orange coloured and dimpled and that apples are smooth skinned and variously red or green. (And we knew back in 2001 that they were both fruit and we didn't care then that apples are not oranges and sure as hell we don't care now). (So if you want to discuss the difference we will pretend we don't understand what you are talking about and keep echoing "They are both fruit."

OR

C) We will agree with you that "apple skin is smooth and variously green or red coloured" BUT no way will we even recognise that apples are not oranges because a truther says they are different and we will never be caught dead or alive agreeing with a truther that they are different.

That last one is the subtle one where a lot of probably genuine misunderstanding is occurring. "They" agree that M_T's point (and mine, and xxx...) is correct - apples have smooth skins but persist in glossing over the distinction.

and the chorus chimes in:

"THEY ARE ALL FRUIT!"
...which neatly sidesteps the point....again. ;) :boggled:

And I will keep my previously stated promise and withdraw from this thread until and if M_T decide to back his own claim,. and that event would be an historic first.
 
ozeco41 said:
That's true Orphia - as are most of the apparently opposing opinions being posted. (They are mostly partial truths which have lost the full context.)

I know the risks but I'll post a metaphor/analogy.

The core issue which started this recent spate of posts is a disagreement over the difference between apples and oranges when someone identified an apple (M_T, me et al) others had identified the same fruit as an orange.(tfk and those implicitly backing him whether they know it or not.)

Major_Tom says: (1) It was an apple and (2) apples are different to oranges. And he implies that he was the first one to notice it and the only one to explain it...personal ego stuff.

tfk said, in effect, you are silly M_T to claim that it is an apple because the god (AKA Z Bazant) correctly described it as an orange. You are also wrong to claim they are different because apples do not exist so cannot be different.

And I get into the mix because I didn't lose track of the initiating issue. So I agreed that apples are different to oranges, agreed with M_T's identification of apple and, may the god's of JREF forgive me, I explained why. Several times.

The responses fall into three main camps:

A) "They are all fruit" - implying that there is no difference between apples and oranges.

B) We understood 100 years ago that orange skin is orange coloured and dimpled and that apples are smooth skinned and variously red or green. (And we knew back in 2001 that they were both fruit and we didn't care then that apples are not oranges and sure as hell we don't care now). (So if you want to discuss the difference we will pretend we don't understand what you are talking about and keep echoing "They are both fruit."

OR

C) We will agree with you that "apple skin is smooth and variously green or red coloured" BUT no way will we even recognise that apples are not oranges because a truther says they are different and we will never be caught dead or alive agreeing with a truther that they are different.

That last one is the subtle one where a lot of probably genuine misunderstanding is occurring. "They" agree that M_T's point (and mine, and xxx...) is correct - apples have smooth skins but persist in glossing over the distinction.

and the chorus chimes in:

"THEY ARE ALL FRUIT!"
...which neatly sidesteps the point....again. ;) :boggled:

And I will keep my previously stated promise and withdraw from this thread until and if M_T decide to back his own claim,. and that event would be an historic first.
Click to expand...
Well, that's a hypothesis. And I suppose you can shoe-horn it in to fit the current make-up of this particular forum, since pretty much all the original rational-minded principals have left the forum.

enjoy.
 
rwguinn said:
Well, that's a hypothesis. And I suppose you can shoe-horn it in to fit the current make-up of this particular forum, since pretty much all the original rational-minded principals have left the forum.

enjoy.
Click to expand...

Hey! :(

Are you picking on my bizarre form of entertainment? :)
 
rwguinn said:
Well, that's a hypothesis. And I suppose you can shoe-horn it in to fit the current make-up of this particular forum, since pretty much all the original rational-minded principals have left the forum.

enjoy.
Click to expand...

And some of us non-originals barely skim the sub-forum anymore...
 
Who gives a great goddamn what anyone wishes to call it?

A vertical avalanche of debris, ROOSD, even "pancaking", all describe, to one degree of precision or another, the same thing.

We humans simply like to summarize complex issues through metaphor, simile, analogy and acronyms.

Its especially common for events where an exact step by step and greatly detailed explanation is not possible, such as in the case of the towers, and WTC7 for that matter.

Even pancaking as an analogy is correct as long as one keeps in mind that in comparison to the actual event, analogies ALWAYS break down at some point.

MT attempted to glean more detail from the collapse videos, to determine what parts of the towers began moving first. femr2 went about similar detail mining.

Now it seems the debate has come down to a battle of who's metaphors, similies, analogies and acronyms are better.

Unlike JSO, I couldn't care less.
 
jaydeehess said:
Who gives a great goddamn what anyone wishes to call it?

A vertical avalanche of debris, ROOSD, even "pancaking", all describe, to one degree of precision or another, the same thing.

We humans simply like to summarize complex issues through metaphor, simile, analogy and acronyms.

Its especially common for events where an exact step by step and greatly detailed explanation is not possible, such as in the case of the towers, and WTC7 for that matter.

Even pancaking as an analogy is correct as long as one keeps in mind that in comparison to the actual event, analogies ALWAYS break down at some point.

MT attempted to glean more detail from the collapse videos, to determine what parts of the towers began moving first. femr2 went about similar detail mining.

Now it seems the debate has come down to a battle of who's metaphors, similies, analogies and acronyms are better.

Unlike JSO, I couldn't care less.
Click to expand...


But, exactly how far right (or left) of center did the first piece fall that was considered "in the foot-print"?


:boxedin:
 
beachnut said:
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/11crushedfloors.jpg
Can't be pancake collapse, these 3 or 4 floors fused together means it was a layer-cake collapse. Get your engineering terms right; did you read the "book" it is all in the "book".
Click to expand...
Lasagne. Not layer cake. Let's be accurate, if not precise.
(I've got a couple of engineers who are adamant in the FEA, that SPC's are to be termed "Constraints" only. Restraints, Constraints, Grounding, Fixities--who gives a rat's ass. They are all the same thing...)
 
rwguinn said:
Lasagne. Not layer cake. Let's be accurate, if not precise.
(I've got a couple of engineers who are adamant in the FEA, that SPC's are to be termed "Constraints" only. Restraints, Constraints, Grounding, Fixities--who gives a rat's ass. They are all the same thing...)
Click to expand...

Book ends, anchors, "You shall not pass"-points, :)
 
Orphia Nay said:
I'm confused. Is ozeco saying oranges are pancakes?

Even moreso, I'm hungry.
Click to expand...
Nah. Just me having fun with analogies. BTW the analogy is accurate BUT ignore it if EITHER it or the subject of current discussion is confusing.

Given the heat coming my way when I explained historic reality in plain English I got frustrated and played smart-arse with the analogy - being fully aware that analogy would probably be harder to process.

If you can filter out all the interpersonal issues and anti-truther bias there is only one technical issue of significance:

There are two descriptions of the mechanism of "Global Collapse" for the two Twin Towers. Those are:
1) Descriptions of what really happened - in this case Major_Toms version which he calls "OOS Model".
2) Academic abstract models by Prof. Z Bazant who wrote a series of papers - of which only the main aspect of the first paper validly applies to WTC 9/11 Twin Towers collapses.

So those two are the apple and orange of my analogy. The two are different and saying "they are both fruit" does not help when the discussion is about the difference between them. And the history of discussion is littered with people invalidly mixing the two.

DISCLAIMER: Members keep telling me I've got the history wrong. They should read post #3 of this thread. :D
 
Thanks, ozeco41, and a Happy Birthday to you!

BirthdayCandles_zpsa6565560.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom