OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[jaydeehess]

I think the big omissions by NIST and our Uncle Tom is the lack of attention paid to wind. In 15 seconds or so the area of wind within the tower was pushed out the tower and then came back in to replace the void.

One more time, in English?

a probable translation:

In 15 seconds or so the /area of wind / volume of air within the tower was pushed out the tower and then an equal or greater volume of air came back in to replace the void left by the now missing structure.


I think Richard is trying to say that the inrushing air would be a force on the top of the falling mass.
In fact we can see the effect of the later as the smoke from the fires gets drawn down as the collapse continues. Not a particularily strong force is evident in this and I cannot envision it having much effect in driving the collapse.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Again you make a silly comment. I didn't misuse the term and I am not being bitchy... I referred steel horizontal members which expanded from heat and pushed against columns. You didn't understand that?

Yes, because those horizontal members aren't referred to as "braces" in normal parlance. Only diagonal members are referred to as braces. Horizontal members in the plane of the floor are beams (or girders if they span from column to column and support beams).

 

[Myriad]

If you know of a way to address such questions and yield reliable answers without mathematical models and equations, please enlighten the world. Interpretive dance, maybe?

BV eq 12:

You have been openly misrepresenting this equation for years. This is a 2nd order differential equation with only one variable.

Do you know what the variable z(t) represents or tracks?


Bazant states in BV:

"Eqs. (12) and (17) show that Fc(z) can be evaluated from
precise monitoring of motion history z(t) and y(t), provided
that m(z) and lamda(z) are known. A millisecond accuracy for
z(t) or y(t) would be required. Such information can, in theory,
be extracted from a high-speed camera record of the collapse.
Approximate information could be extracted from a
regular video of collapse, but only for the first few seconds
of collapse because later all of the moving part of the WTC
towers became shrouded in a cloud of dust and smoke (the visible
lower edge of the cloud of dust and debris expelled from
the tower was surely not the collapse front but was moving
ahead of it, by some unknown distance)."


In the first sentence he tells you how to obtain z(t) and find Fc(z). In the last sentence he is telling us he does not know how to identify the collapse fronts in the visual record.



This is what you wrote about the application of this equation and apparently still believe: Dave Rogers and Myriad


There is little in your comments that is the product of critical thought. These comments have much more the quality of a meme than of critical thought.

.

I wasn't seriously requesting an actual example of interpretive dance, but thanks anyway!

 

[Major_Tom]

I wasn't seriously requesting an actual example of interpretive dance, but thanks anyway!

Newtons Bit
R Mackey
Dave Rogers and Myriad


These comments are a repeated misrepresentation BV eqs 12 and 17, beginning on page 1 and continuing even now, more than 4 years later.

I have mentioned many times that the grouped comments act more like a repetition of popular shared memes than any product of careful, critical thought. In order to explain this more clearly I have assembled a general description of the meaning of 'meme' and 'memetics' with some resources on the idea linked here.

 

[Major_Tom]

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation
Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso

Journal of Engineering Mechanics

Feature: Special Report

Linked here


Quote from the article:



THE COLLAPSE

...
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down. [/quote]



This is a comment by Thomas Eagar in December 2001 which repeats many of the popular memes about the WTC1 and 2 collapse progression mode including

1) Crush front acceleration (near free fall) and velocity (increasing to near 200 mph)
2) On why the 'top part' didn't fall off the 'bottom part' during the collapse progression process.

According to the article, there was insufficient lateral velocity due to the near freefall acceleration of collapse and there was insufficient lateral load to move the center of gravity of the upper portion one hundred feet to any side. In short, 'a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.'




These authors clearly did not understand of the process sometimes called "ROOSD" when making these comments. These explanations are primitive (and wrong) compared to what is described in the OOS model




Consider another popular meme expressed by R Mackey on page 1 concerning the OOS model:

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.

while misrepresenting BV eq 12 and being completely oblivious to the misrepresentation.

 

[GlennB]

I have mentioned many times that the grouped comments act more like a repetition of popular shared memes than any product of careful, critical thought.

You've repeated it so many times it's in danger of becoming a meme.

 

[Myriad]

If you want to analyze and model the contribution of memes to the collapse dynamics of the WTC towers, it's essential to know how much they weigh.

By fortunate happenstance, the JREF Forum is the only venue in history where this crucial question has been carefully examined. That ground-breaking discussion occurred in 2007, and is well worth reviewing. (Warning: it starts a bit slow in the first page or two, but quickly improves thereafter.)

 

[GlennB]

If you want to analyze and model the contribution of memes to the collapse dynamics of the WTC towers, it's essential to know how much they weigh.

By fortunate happenstance, the JREF Forum is the only venue in history where this crucial question has been carefully examined. That ground-breaking discussion occurred in 2007, and is well worth reviewing. (Warning: it starts a bit slow in the first page or two, but quickly improves thereafter.)

The first page or two are superb. I'll keep the rest for tomorrow

 

[Oystein]

...

These comments are a repeated misrepresentation BV eqs 12 and 17, beginning on page 1 and continuing even now, more than 4 years later.

I don't see that anyone here is representing or misrepresenting "BV eqs 12 and 17 ... now". Who would care anyway?

What advance in welfare can be possibly achieved by banging on that drum "more than 4 years later"? I see that eveyone has progressed since then, only you come back to this pet again and again and again and again, with no discernable purpose.


In the meantime, has any building been made safer because you alert the world to obscure memes? Has any bad person connected to 9/11 been identified or arrested because of it? Has any policy been changed for the better? Has academia and the world of engineering gained any understanding of the day's events through publications of yours? Have any CT peddlers abandoned their silliness because he sees now how BV eqs 12 and 17 have been misrepresented?
Or hasn't your endeavour of the last couple of years been entirely fruitless?

 

[JSanderO]

I don't see that anyone here is representing or misrepresenting "BV eqs 12 and 17 ... now". Who would care anyway?

What advance in welfare can be possibly achieved by banging on that drum "more than 4 years later"? I see that eveyone has progressed since then, only you come back to this pet again and again and again and again, with no discernable purpose.


In the meantime, has any building been made safer because you alert the world to obscure memes? Has any bad person connected to 9/11 been identified or arrested because of it? Has any policy been changed for the better? Has academia and the world of engineering gained any understanding of the day's events through publications of yours? Have any CT peddlers abandoned their silliness because he sees now how BV eqs 12 and 17 have been misrepresented?
Or hasn't your endeavour of the last couple of years been entirely fruitless?

Online discussion will never have any impact on official *anything*... People who make policy, write codes and technical reports do not bother with online discussions.

The online forums are for the armchair experts who enjoy debate and perhaps expressing their views. This is true for 9/11 or sailing or dance etc. forums.

Lower your expectations...

 

[Major_Tom]

I don't see that anyone here is representing or misrepresenting "BV eqs 12 and 17 ... now".

Activity within this thread was revived in June, 2014. The newer comments start on page 44.

There is only one regular JREF poster, Ozeco, who can spot incorrect statements within BV, BL, or BLGB.

The memes established in the first 8 pages of the thread are alive and well.

What advance in welfare can be possibly achieved by banging on that drum "more than 4 years later"? I see that eveyone has progressed since then, only you come back to this pet again and again and again and again, with no discernable purpose.

When I have some time I'll produce at least 20 quotes from page 44 onward in this thread that demonstrates that the memes established in the first pages have now become unquestioned truths within the JREF environment.



From the last sentence of part 1 of the book:

The case of the WTC collapses, observers can become transfixed not on the object of study, but on each other, or can support a theory without efforts to fact-check claims. The resulting theory comes to serve as a type of surrogate reality. A false sense of certainty forms in the observer over the surrogate reality.

My guess is that this is how many debunkers feel about AE911T. The criticism is that AE911T participates in meme repetition and propagation, not evidence-based critical thought.


My criticism of AE911T and environments like JREF is identical: Their chief activity is the propagation of memes about the WTC collapses. The act like breeding grounds for memes.





Another way to write my thesis is that the technical history of the WTC collapses is 'all memed-up.'




We live in a memed-up world, and even the physical sciences are not immune to this weakness.

 

[JSanderO]

When I have some time I'll produce at least 20 quotes from page 44 onwards in this thread that demonstrates that the memes established in the first pages have now become unquestioned truths within the JREF environment.

But then again... who cares? Only people who post and read here care... No one who has any impact on policy, codes and so forth bothers with JREF. This site like most others are for web warriors battling with each other.

Even Gage who collects and has spent millions since 2008 has had no impact on anything but those who believe his spew... and a few idiots who give him a platform in the media.

 

[carlitos]

What advance in welfare can be possibly achieved by banging on that drum "more than 4 years later"? I see that eveyone has progressed since then, only you come back to this pet again and again and again and again, with no discernable purpose.

When I have some time I'll produce at least 20 quotes from page 44 onward in this thread that demonstrates that the memes established in the first pages have now become unquestioned truths within the JREF environment.

And that will lead to what advance in welfare?

 

[JSanderO]

And that will lead to what advance in welfare?

I suppose there is a follow the herd mentality in places where it is not expected. This may lead to the acceptance of incorrect ideas or memes... and the consequence of that is hard to determine.

Galileo went up again the church for his ideas and one might say that there was a herd mentality at the time because the church represented what was assumed was the *truth*. One might argue that the truth in that case had no real impact for generations and conceivably the conventional wisdom could have remain with little impact on society.

But ultimately Galileo's work paved the way for advances in understanding our world and eventually to practical things.

The sort of herd mentality thinking seems to be a common theme on both sides of the false dichotomy of 9/11. Ozzie calls it the inability to think.

 

[Major_Tom]

But then again... who cares? Only people who post and read here care... No one who has any impact on policy, codes and so forth bothers with JREF. This site like most others are for web warriors battling with each other.

I can't see visitor logs here but we've had a wide range of visitors at the 9/11 Forum. Just one example:

It would be pretty naive to believe that at least one government agency doesn't stop by here and check things out from time to time.

 

[Major_Tom]

The sort of herd mentality thinking seems to be a common theme on both sides of the false dichotomy of 9/11. Ozzie calls it the inability to think.

On this general point we are in complete agreement. My own research uncovers evidence of the same phenomenon.


Both sides of the artificially narrowed false choice are all memed-up. And these are very loud, dominant memes.

 

[beachnut]

I can't see visitor logs here but we've had a wide range of visitors at the 9/11 Forum. Just one example

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/nist_comes_to_forum.jpg[/qimg]

It would be pretty naive to believe that at least one government agency doesn't stop by here and check things out from time to time.

What does someone, could be the someone like me sweeping the floors and cleaning toilets sneaking on to the internet for free... are you paranoid - how does this support the OOSCPM as it dovetails with the "book" with no conclusion on 911, or 911 truth.

Paranoia, it goes with being special. Wonder how hard they laugh when they see your "just plane idiots" rant; or the "gravity collapse is an illusion" BS. The book is what they are after, it has a conclusion which... wait, there is no conclusion related to 911 as an event, only BS.

Now jump on the heard mentality, is that part of the model without math stuff; how does that dovetail with debunking 911? Or, is it a special kind of projection, a small heard pushes the heard mentally as weak insult, providing no evidence, no identifying the heard. Is joining 911 truth groups a kind of heard mentality? Is that a gullible heard mentality, fooled by fake "experts" like Gage, or Jones, or worse Fetzer and Wood, or what. Are the smart kids in school a kind of smart heard mentality who go off to college to become engineers who understand models, and math. What kind of heard are you trying to identify as you track NIST looking in on the best of the best with "just smart idiots" rant, or the 911 truthers pushing idiotic claims at 9/11 Forum which go unchecked, un-debunked by 9/11 Forum posters, giving a platform to idiotic claims, lies and delusions like the "gravity collapse is an illusion".

I wonder why NIST might visit a web site which has such high topics, "just smart idiotis" is it for the super intellectual pursuit of the posters who can't debunk the lies posted unopposed at 9/11 Forum. Actually it is amazing how anyone finds 9/11 Forum, it does not show up until a google of "NIST made a typo just plain idiots", which finds a page where NIST shows up 13 times.

NIST most likely was looking for examples of how silly 911 truth followers are, they make up failed opinions about things and can't figure out reality, like Flight 93, saying idiotic nonsense like this, which you can find at The 9/11 Forum "With flight 93 we were told it buried itself in the ground. Ha???????????? why didn't they dig it up? Let's see the plane! ". Is that a kind of heard mentality, or what.

Is surfing a kind of freedom of speech

 

[Major_Tom]

If I am right about the WTC technical history of the collapses being 'all memed up', it shouldn't be hard to find misrepresentations and confusion about the WTC1 and 2 collapse propagation and initiation mechanisms throughout professional literature and journalism.


The Thomas Eagar article cited earlier is a good example. So are BV, BL and BLGB if they are examined critically and not by imitating popular memes. So is the Seffen paper. Each of these papers were published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.


This next example is a 188 page PhD thesis written in 2011 on the subject of progresive collapse

Université Libre de Bruxelles Royal Military Academy
Faculty of Applied Sciences Polytechnical Faculty
Progressive Collapse Simulation of Reinforced Concrete Structures: Influence of Design and Material Parameters and Investigation of the Strain Rate Effects

By Berta Santafé Iribarren

Dissertation linked here.



Observe how he describes the collapse of the WTC towers on page 4.





After illustrating the WTC1 collapse as a crush down, then crush up process, he writes:

"In short, the fact that the most representative examples of progressive
collapse have occurred in the last decades has led to both American and
European general building codes to include guidelines for the evaluation of
the potential for progressive collapse. However, most of these docu-
ments are based on simplified analysis approaches or they merely give general
recommendations for the mitigation of the consequences of a structural lo-
cal failure. Hence, increasing interest is being drawn in the civil engineering
research community to derive new specific design rules against progressive
collapse. Nevertheless, it appears to be a very ambitious task to propose a
general analysis procedure applicable to every loading scenario and building
type."



That is true. The existing documents give only general recommendations. They are so general that a PhD student writing his thesis on progressive collapse in 2011 included an image of the crush down, then crush up mechanism as describing the actual WTC1, 2 collapse progressing mechanisms and neither he nor his faculty advisers managed to spot the error.

 

[Major_Tom]

If I am right about the WTC technical history of the collapses being 'all memed up', it shouldn't be hard to find misrepresentations and confusion about the WTC1 and 2 collapse propagation and initiation mechanisms throughout professional literature and journalism.


The Thomas Eagar article cited earlier is a good example.

It is an excellent example. It appears a few months after the collapses in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. It is published as a special report. The tile of the report is: "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation."

And in the article the authors demonstrate clearly they were not aware of the progression mechanism we sometimes call 'ROOSD' at the time they published this article.





The Bazant papers BV, BL, and BLGB are another excellent example of this same pattern. Unfortunately, memes have substituted for reality so thoroughly in this JREF environment that it is beyond the capacity for most every regular JREF poster see this fact.

 

[GlennB]

It is an excellent example.

You just quoted yourself, well within the edit time limit. I find this disturbing.