• 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.
jaydeehess said:
If the absolute best case, all load directly impinging on columns, indicates failure to arrest, all other scenarios are moot, in as far as allowing arrest.
Click to expand...

Come on... this limiting case is not useful at all in understanding how the structure DID fail/collapse. The mappings of movements of the building components is far more useful.

Why this paper is cited as a basis for understanding the event is a mystery to me. Really... who the eff cares?

When the towers came down people wanted an explanation. Mr. B did not give anything close one. I find it a huge distraction.
 
JSanderO said:
Come on... this limiting case is not useful at all in understanding how the structure DID fail/collapse. The mappings of movements of the building components is far more useful.

Why this paper is cited as a basis for understanding the event is a mystery to me. Really... who the eff cares?

When the towers came down people wanted an explanation. Mr. B did not give anything close one. I find it a huge distraction.
Click to expand...
It helps you understand what the structure could with-hold if you say, strengthened the floor system.

It is a huge distraction. I wonder why "truthers" decided to argue about it. :rolleyes:

ETA: Did you see the PBS special around the end of 2001? They explained it about right (and before someone decided to give it initials).
 
Last edited:
As I conclude in the book:

First and foremost it is necessary to recognize the confusion surrounding the collapses which exists on all technical levels. For many people this is very hard to do. Many will not recognize this within themselves, but perhaps they can recognize it in others as it is quite visible if one makes the effort to see it.



There are simple examples throughout this thread among yourselves.


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


TFK, could you please comment on how you understand the relationship between the OOS propagation model and the Bazant papers on the WTC collapses from 2007 onward? Can you elaborate on the mistakes you have spotted in the OOS model?


Newton's Bit, following up on your comments in the first few pages of this thread, could you please explain the relation between the crush down, then crush up descriptions by Bazant in his papers on the WTC collapses from 2007 onward and the progression mechanism described in the OOS model?

...............................



Some readers will not be able to spot contradictions in what TFK posted earlier about the OOS propagation model. Others can spot contradictions in what he wrote.

There is no real 'consensus' among regular JREF posters on the issue of Bazant's latter papers on this subject and the OOS model. Yet people, for some reason, do not want to admit it.
 
Major_Tom said:
Newton's Bit, following up on your comments in the first few pages of this thread, could you please explain the relation between the crush down, then crush up descriptions by Bazant in his papers on the WTC collapses from 2007 onward and the progression mechanism described in the OOS model?
Click to expand...

Yes I can, no I'm not going to waste my time. This isn't a class, Major_Tom, and you're not a teacher. If you have actual conclusions to post, then do so.
 
Major_Tom said:
As I conclude in the book:

First and foremost it is necessary to recognize the confusion surrounding the collapses which exists on all technical levels. For many people this is very hard to do. Many will not recognize this within themselves, but perhaps they can recognize it in others as it is quite visible if one makes the effort to see it.



>Snip

.
Click to expand...

The only people confused by the collapses are idiotic truthers who lack critical thinking skills.

The rest of us know that when you fly huge airliners full of jet fuel into buildings at 500 mph bad things are going to happen, especially if the fireproofing is removed and the resulting fires remain unfought for periods of time.

I mean this is simple stuff a child can understand, not sure why you're having such difficulty
 
tsig said:
They don't have to vanish just buckle.
Click to expand...

Did we see all the columns facade and perimeter buckle? Do we have those buckled columns in the debris? This would be pretty obvious.

But we don't so this is nonsense and I'd like to learn how you buckle all the 236 facade columns and the 47 core columns together... from the miraculously applied lateral loads of the floor trusses to the columns when X mass dropped on them inexplicably.

You know Mr B's math have nothing to do with the real world of these building collapses.
 
JSanderO said:
But we don't so this is nonsense and I'd like to learn how you buckle all the 236 facade columns and the 47 core columns together...
Click to expand...
But there weren't 236 pristine facade columns and 47 pristine core columns at the time of collapse initiation.

Due to the impact, on the north face of WTC1 for example, there were 33 severed perimeter columns and 4 damaged ones (as far as I can count). Nobody knows the exact number of severed vs. damaged core columns.

Further weaken the remaining facade and core columns (some damaged and the rest not from the impact) with heat from the fires.
 
The same way it's important to know exactly which 1/4 inch of weld on the water tank failed first when the thermostat and relief valve were disabled.
 
JSanderO said:
Did we see all the columns facade and perimeter buckle? Do we have those buckled columns in the debris? This would be pretty obvious.

But we don't so this is nonsense and I'd like to learn how you buckle all the 236 facade columns and the 47 core columns together... from the miraculously applied lateral loads of the floor trusses to the columns when X mass dropped on them inexplicably.

You know Mr B's math have nothing to do with the real world of these building collapses.
Click to expand...

So can you explain how columns like this could buckle sequentially. Buckling means you get large movement you cant get large movement until they all buckle
 
I don't think there was as much buckling as there was lateral displacement and axial mis alignment... The displacement was caused I propose by heat expansion of the braces... You don't need much displacement of column end to end condition to destroy the bearing area for the load path.
 
JSanderO said:
I don't think there was as much buckling as there was lateral displacement and axial mis alignment... The displacement was caused I propose by heat expansion of the braces... You don't need much displacement of column end to end condition to destroy the bearing area for the load path.
Click to expand...
I'm curious. What do you think the purpose of Bazant's work was? Do you think he was trying to explain the collapse (I hope not)?
 
DGM said:
I'm curious. What do you think the purpose of Bazant's work was? Do you think he was trying to explain the collapse (I hope not)?
Click to expand...

I haven't a clue... But it seems to be what is cited to dispute CD claims... But those are hooey in any case.
 
JSanderO said:
...
You know Mr B's math have nothing to do with the real world of these building collapses.
Click to expand...

E=mc2
111nukeweapon.jpg

It guess it takes an engineer to understand math models, or sneaky lay people who read and comprehend.

It takes smart people to see the math is real, can be real, the math is. Engineers, scientist, math, physics, imagination.
Showing what is possible - it is real - Got Math?
Smart people ...
1EMC2einstein.jpg
 
Beachie... I don't dispute the value of math for analysis and modeling the world... I jsut don't find the Bazant stuff terribly relevant to explaining the twin tower collapses. It doesn't surprise me in the least that if you drop a huge mass 12 feet it would destroy a steel frame structure. But that is hardly what happened... or maybe you saw something different?
 
JSanderO said:
I haven't a clue... But it seems to be what is cited to dispute CD claims... But those are hooey in any case.
Click to expand...

Yeah, again, because if the absolute best casr scenario, of having all load of the falling mass being on the columns, could not arrest collapse, then there is no case to be made for demolition.

Simple concept. Bazant's calcs demonstrate no demolition was required. That is in no way suggesting that Bazant's model is what really happened.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom