OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[DGM]

In contrast to my approach, for reference purposes I've compiled an overall summary of how the BV, BL, BLGB papers and the OOS propagation model are perceived within this environment of JREF. (These quotes are from p 1-13):

So you believe these works were (or subsets) not intended as a limiting model. So what?

 

[Seymour Butz]

You have a major case of Dunning-Krueger Syndrome, bro.

And you're missing a step. Step 0 should state : get an education in structural engineering and then spend 10 yrs actually doing the thing.

 

[DGM]

You have a major case of Dunning-Krueger Syndrome, bro.

And you're missing a step. Step 0 should state : get an education in structural engineering and then spend 10 yrs actually doing the thing.

I wonder what the point is. His OOS (or whatever) is not wrong. It's been the accepted explanation of the progression since 2001.

His problem seems to be that people see the Bazant papers as limiting models as they specified. He seems to think they intended them not to be but, claimed they were.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I wonder what the point is. His OOS (or whatever) is not wrong. It's been the accepted explanation of the progression since 2001.

His problem seems to be that people see the Bazant papers as limiting models as they specified. He seems to think they intended them not to be but, claimed they were.

While that's probably true, I can't say for sure. Major_Tom seems intent on not actually explaining any of his positions.

 

[DGM]

While that's probably true, I can't say for sure. Major_Tom seems intent on not actually explaining any of his positions.

I'd like to see Tony Sz weigh in on this, he seems to be the biggest user of Bazant models to support reality.

 

[tsig]

You have a major case of Dunning-Krueger Syndrome, bro.

And you're missing a step. Step 0 should state : get an education in structural engineering and then spend 10 yrs actually doing the thing.

^^^^^^^^


This, this, this.

 

[Seymour Butz]

While that's probably true, I can't say for sure. Major_Tom seems intent on not actually explaining any of his positions.

I believe that Oz said that Tom's only stated purpose here is to troll for responses to put in his book.

Sounds reasonable.

 

[jaydeehess]

I couldn't care a lot less about that, but on page 1 you said, "It does belong here because once the model is accepted, we can examine conclusions in view of CD. Please give me some time to show that. I need to get through the initial resistance first."

M_T, these are your words, correct?

Also, in sharp contrast to both Bazant and Seffen, I strongly recommend approaching the physics and mathematics of the WTC1 and 2 collapse propagations using these 5 steps in order:


Step 1: GAIN AN OVERALL CONCEPTUAL AND VISUAL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT ONE IS LOOKING AT

Step 2: RESEARCH AVAILABLE LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT OF FLOORS IMPACTING FLOORS

Step 3: MEASURE THE COLLAPSE PROPAGATION RATE AS ACCURATELY AND COMPLETELY AS POSSIBLE

Step 4: EXAMINE A VARIETY OF PHYSICS-BASED MATHEMATICAL APPROACHES TO THE COLLAPSE OF STACKED SYSTEMS

Step 5: COMPARE MODELS IN STEP 4 TO INFORMATION IN STEPS 1 - 3 to see which models could match propagation behavior or teach something about it.



I learned from experience and by watching others that if one skips any of these steps, their analysis is bound to run into problems of which they probably won't be aware.

None of which requires an examination of third party perceptions of the previous literature.

I am very interested in historic revisionism in relation to the WTC collapses. That is what my book is about. That is what is happening within the environment of this forum but the group seems completely unaware that this is happening.

A small collection of repeated memes within this environment has replaced the capacity to think critically about BV, BL, and BLGB. Those propagating the memes are not necessarily insincere but they are incapable of perceiving what they are doing.

Can you please quote your book in its primary raison d'etre being an examination of the perception of various Bazant works by third parties.

To be clear as well, have you or have you not, abandoned the research you expressed an interest in, as quoted above by William Seeger? In addition of the points you outline above, have you abandoned step 5?

 

[beachnut]

...
I learned from experience and by watching others that if one skips any of these steps, their analysis is bound to run into problems of which they probably won't be aware.

List the problems please.

Who skipped which steps, list your experience explicitly please.

Is the "gravity collapse an illusion" for you at this time? Has learning from experience take up all the computational skills at hand. Illusion or reality now.

 

[Major_Tom]

BV from the abstract:

The parameters are the compaction ratio of a crushed story, the fracture of mass ejected outside the tower
perimeter, and the energy dissipation per unit height. The last is the most important, yet the hardest to predict theoretically. It is argued
that, using inverse analysis, one could identify these parameters from a precise record of the motion of floors of a collapsing building. Due
to a shroud of dust and smoke, the videos of the World Trade Center are only of limited use. It is proposed to obtain such records by
monitoring with millisecond accuracy the precise time history of displacements in different modes of building demolitions. The
monitoring could be accomplished by real-time telemetry from sacrificial accelerometers, or by high-speed optical camera. The resulting
information on energy absorption capability would be valuable for the rating of various structural systems and for inferring their collapse
mode under extreme fire, internal explosion, external blast, impact or other kinds of terrorist attack, as well as earthquake and foundation
movements.

From BV conclusions:

4. The mode and duration of collapse of WTC towers are con-
sistent with the present model, but not much could be learned
because, after the first few seconds, the motion became ob-
structed from view by a shroud of dust and smoke.

5. The present idealized model allows simple inverse analysis
which can yield the crushing energy per story and other
properties of the structure from a precisely recorded history
of motion during collapse. From the crushing energy, one can
infer the collapse mode, e.g., single-story or multistory buck
ling of columns.

6. It is proposed to monitor the precise time history of displace-
ments in building demolitions—for example, by radio telem-
etry from sacrificial accelerometers, or high-speed optical
camera—and to engineer different modes of collapse to be
monitored. This should provide invaluable information on
the energy absorption capability of various structural sys-
tems, needed for assessing the effects of explosions, impacts,
earthquake, and terrorist acts.

These were the limitations in WTC observation and measurement Bazant faced in 2007.


At that time it was commonly accepted that it wasn't possible to map motion of the crush fronts. It was believed that it was only possible to measure WTC1 roofline motion for only the first few seconds of the collapse and combine that information with seismic records which may indicate the moment of completion of the collapse.

This was the only data available to researchers like Bazant: roofline motion for a few seconds and seismic data. After these papers were written these limitations were removed and much more accurate mappings became available for the first time since the collapses.


It is an ironic fact of history that the measurements provided largely by Femr2 on WTC1 in 2009, 2010 are the same type of measurements Bazant was looking for on the WTC towers in 2007.

 

[Major_Tom]

It is an ironic fact of history that the measurements provided largely by Femr2 on WTC1 in 2009, 2010 are the same type of measurements Bazant was looking for on the WTC towers in 2007.

Why is it that so few people notice the relation between Bazant's proposal for data on collapses and his lack of data on the WTC collapses in 2007 with the Femr2 abundance of data presented in 2009-2010?




I think it is because BV was misrepresented within this JREF environment from the first few posts of this thread to the present.

An overall summary of how the BV, BL, BLGB papers and the OOS propagation model are perceived within this environment of JREF is linked here (these quotes are from p 1-13).

Individual arguments supporting this perception are given by...

Newtons Bit
R Mackey
Dave Rogers and Myriad

and this is no random list of average JREF posters.

R Mackey is an engineer working for NASA, I believe.
Doesn't Dave Rogers have a Ph.D. in physics?
Newtons Bit, you are a structural engineer with a masters degree, is that true?
I am not sure about Myriad, but I respect the desire for privacy.

TFK is a mechanical engineer and his comments are available for anyone to see. Beachnut claims to be an engineer with M.S..

This collection of arguments form the roots of the most commonly repeated memes within the JREF environment about Bazant and about the OOS propagation model.


This meme by R Mackey, for example, demonstrates how the first actual measurements of the WTC1 collapse front propagation were received in JREF:

The whole line of investigation is ridiculous. What unanswered question does this paper purport to examine? None. Existing, reliable, reviewed scientific literature covers it quite thoroughly. All the made-up acronyms and appeals for attention are no more than fatuous Truther narcissism.

It is impossible for a person this closed-minded, so drunk on memes, to notice that there is a direct relation between Bazant's limitations of WTC observation and measurement in 2007 and the abundance of observation and measurement later provided in 2009-2010 in the form of the OOS model and WTC collapse mappings.

 

[tsig]

Why is it that so few people notice the relation between Bazant's proposal for data on collapses and his lack of data on the WTC collapses in 2007 with the Femr2 abundance of data presented in 2009-2010?




I think it is because BV was misrepresented within this JREF environment from the first few posts of this thread to the present.

An overall summary of how the BV, BL, BLGB papers and the OOS propagation model are perceived within this environment of JREF is linked here (these quotes are from p 1-13).

Individual arguments supporting this perception are given by...

Newtons Bit
R Mackey
Dave Rogers and Myriad

and this is no random list of average JREF posters.

R Mackey is an engineer working for NASA, I believe.
Doesn't Dave Rogers have a Ph.D. in physics?
Newtons Bit, you are a structural engineer with a masters degree, is that true?
I am not sure about Myriad, but I respect the desire for privacy.

TFK is a mechanical engineer and his comments are available for anyone to see. Beachnut claims to be an engineer with M.S..

This collection of arguments form the roots of the most commonly repeated memes within the JREF environment about Bazant and about the OOS propagation model.


This meme by R Mackey, for example, demonstrates how the first actual measurements of the WTC1 collapse front propagation were received in JREF:





It is impossible for a person this closed-minded, so drunk on memes, to notice that there is a direct relation between Bazant's limitations of WTC observation and measurement in 2007 and the abundance of observation and measurement later provided in 2009-2010 in the form of the OOS model and WTC collapse mappings.

You totally missed this:


Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post

Personally, I like how he seems to think Bazant and Le (2002) is supposed to be an accurate description of the collapse rather than a limiting case, or that he thinks that plus Bazant and Verdure (2006) cover the entire scope of the literature. As if we hadn't explained this to practically every Truther who ever lived a million times each.

Ah well. I guess it keeps them occupied, at least.

Do you know what a limiting case is?

 

[JSanderO]

this?

"In the philosophy of science, under the correspondence principle, a limiting case theory is an earlier theory which becomes incorporated into a later, usually broader theory; that is to say, the earlier (limiting case) theory proves to be a special or limited case of the later theory. Technically, a theory is said to be a limiting case of another, later theory when and if the later theory subsumes the theoretical relations and apparent referents of the earlier one. For example, physicists agree that classical mechanics constitutes a limiting case of relativity theory.[1]

In words of Larry Laudan, realist philosophers use this phrase in the sense that the theory "T1 can be a limiting case of [the theory] T2 only if (a) all the variables (observable and theoretical) assigned a value in T1 are assigned a value by T2 and (b) the values assigned to every variable of T1 are the same as, or very close to, the values T2 assigns to the corresponding variable when certain initial and boundary conditions—consistent with T2—are specified".

The idea that a theory (in our previous example, Newtonian mechanics) that is close to being true (i.e., that is verisimil) converges as a limiting case into a superior theory (in this example, relativistic mechanics) can be an argument for scientific realism, as the theoretical entities postulated by the previous theories are still considered existent (if one assumes semantic realism, they are considered existent because they are referred to) in the successor theories."

 

[Newtons Bit]

Why is it that so few people notice the relation between Bazant's proposal for data on collapses and his lack of data on the WTC collapses in 2007 with the Femr2 abundance of data presented in 2009-2010?

I don't even know what this means. Can you or anyone else decode it?

 

[thedopefishlives]

I don't even know what this means. Can you anyone decode it?

Bazant bad, femr2 good.

 

[carlitos]

It is an ironic fact of history that the measurements provided largely by Femr2 on WTC1 in 2009, 2010 are the same type of measurements Bazant was looking for on the WTC towers in 2007.

In addition to your other difficulties, you are misusing the word "ironic."

 

[jaydeehess]

M_T, these are your words, correct?



None of which requires an examination of third party perceptions of the previous literature.



Can you please quote your book in its primary raison d'etre being an examination of the perception of various Bazant works by third parties.

To be clear as well, have you or have you not, abandoned the research you expressed an interest in, as quoted above by William Seeger? In addition of the points you outline above, have you abandoned step 5?

MT?

 

[beachnut]

...
It is impossible for a person this closed-minded, so drunk on memes, ...

Projection ...

how is that "gravity collapse an illusion" going

 

[DGM]

I don't even know what this means. Can you or anyone else decode it?

My guess is MajorTom wants to use this as evidence that Bazant was trying to actually explain the real collapse.

For me it seems Bazant and Co. lost interest in the actual event and went on with the theoretical allowing for the lines to blend to a large extent. If you were involved in their work from the beginning it would not be a big deal.

Somewhere down the line, their work got dragged out of the intellectual and into the layperson world. None of the Bazant papers belong in the hands of a layperson, They have no purpose there (I include myself in this).

 

[LSSBB]

My guess is MajorTom wants to use this as evidence that Bazant was trying to actually explain the real collapse.

For me it seems Bazant and Co. lost interest in the actual event and went on with the theoretical allowing for the lines to blend to a large extent. If you were involved in their work from the beginning it would not be a big deal.

Somewhere down the line, their work got dragged out of the intellectual and into the layperson world. None of the Bazant papers belong in the hands of a layperson, They have no purpose there (I include myself in this).

This is exactly it. It's like trying to use the raw work of a Nobel Prize theoretical economist to explain why the gas station down the street sells lighters for 3.25 one day and 3.27 three weeks later, and getting upset because his paper left out the fact that a truck at the distributer needed a new engine. It's theory - it's a model.

I spent a bit of time creating a rotational movement simulator employing quaternions, an obscure area of mathematics useful in a few limited areas. I wouldn't expect anyone on the street to apply it to why his sunglasses slid across his dashboard in 2.3 second on an entrance ramp to a freeway on a specific day.