LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
MT, can you show mathematically what the coordinate frame is for your ROOSD model? You are, after all, the one attempting to provide an alternate, superior model, are you not?
OOS Collapse Propagation Model
- Thread starter Major_Tom
- Start date
- Status
MT, can you show mathematically what the coordinate frame is for your ROOSD model? You are, after all, the one attempting to provide an alternate, superior model, are you not?
Why are you asking questions like 911 truth does? I came for answers, and all I got was a "book".
Do you mean z, or t? Can you? lol
Beachy has defended a math formula??
That is one of the two keys equations in BV. You did not know that.
This is October, 2014. Can anyone besides Ozeco spot any mistakes in BV, BL, or BLGB. This same question was asked about a month ago a number of times and nobody except Ozeco was able to do so.
It isn't about beliefs 4 years ago. It is about a blind incompetence which has existed for over 4 years, well-documented within this thread, and continues today.
Someone else who doesn't want this forum to be a total embarrassment may want to step in and help these poor people.
I do not think everyone here functions at the level of Beachnut and I do not judge the quieter readers, but the current participants are obviously embarrassing the rest of you, no?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Go ahead and embarrass us. I bet you won't.
What exactly is wrong with the equation in respect to the purpose they were using it? I'm betting you'll argue against the method instead of the actual math.
Impress me.
Go ahead, explain the errors in Bazant's model. You can't. ...
Good luck with the embarrassment claptrap, can't wait
Last edited:
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
Your equation doesn't have z(t) in it. However BV uses z as the height of upper block an z(t) would presumably be the height of the upper block as a function of time.
You do realize that reading equations, even those with differential equations, is trivial for many of the forum members who post here, right? You don't have special knowledge. And since you won't actually explain, in any detail, how you believe people are misunderstanding BV, there's really no point in trying to discuss the issue with you.
And so, we point and laugh.
I forgot to tell him it was not there... it was funny - but I felt guilty of not trimming the Walnut tree, so I cut and shredded up the Walnut branches... instead of working on a response as requested by MT - amazing how little time it takes to post while doing other "stuff"... (
I find it "funny" 911 truth and MT mention Bazant in the first place.
Last edited:
2nd order diff eq in a single variable. z is a function of time, which is expressed mathematically as z(t)
You have clearly never read the paper. It is the crush front.
How does Bazant use the equation? You do not have a chance in hell of being able to answer that simple question, so I'll provide the quote:
From 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)."
From the BV quote above, does Bazant consider the identification of the crush front or the measurement of the displacement of the WTC crush front to be possible?
Again, you cannot answer so I'll do it for you.
The answer is no. According to him the shroud of dust and smoke blocked moving parts of the WTC towers, like the collapse front, from view.
The pattern that Femr2 measured was considered impossible to measure by Bazant. Direct quote provided.
The only regular poster within this entire thread that came close to answering these questions correctly was Ozeco.
Ozeco also noted the early posts on this subject are an embarrassment.
Newtons Bit
R Mackey
Dave Rogers and Myriad
He was correct. Those posts are an absolute embarrassment.
From page 1, I provide the ROOSD model, your fellow posters respond by misrepresenting BV.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Psychological test - reality check:
After 4+ years of defending a paper you cannot even read, can anyone besides Ozeco spot any mistake or incorrect statement in BV, BL, or BLGB?
What a load of BS.
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
See, JSanderO, what I mean? M_T isn't clear about objectives. In this very post - three lines, three totally different objectives:
1. Provide (presumably work on, discuss) ROOSD model (M_T's model)
2. JREF as a psychology lab (you and I as objects)
3. Prove Bazanzt et.al. wrong (note that Bazant et.al.'s models <> ROOSD model)
When M_T makes a post that addresses the first objective, ROOSD, and I reply to point out an error or a misrepresentation, he ignores my criticism and instead treats me as a lab mouse, tries to run experiments on me. You consider it rude when I object to this?
You should note that M_T proves by this that he is NOT interested in debating ROOSD! So scratch objective 1. from the list - it is merely a device, a trap, a bait, to lure folks into playing mice for objective 2.
Same goes for objective 3., as the latest six or eight posts show: He brings it up not to refute Bz (that ought to be done in appropriate academic and professional venues where Bz and his paper are located) but to lure us into the trap of his psycho lab.
Last edited:
I personally am not interested in the behavior of people in the debate discussion. Too much aggression, gotcha, oneupsmanship and so on. I am not an mathematician, a scientist, even an engineer. I simply want to satisfy my curiosity and understand what appear to be complex technical mechanical events...
At this point all that interests me would be discussions about initiation of the collapses. I personally am not troubled by the collapse phase... ie once the structure or sub system lost capacity it collapses down and ROOSD seems to make sense. I don't care what NIST or AE911T or others said in the past or even today... or who said what when.
At this point all that interests me would be discussions about initiation of the collapses. I personally am not troubled by the collapse phase... ie once the structure or sub system lost capacity it collapses down and ROOSD seems to make sense. I don't care what NIST or AE911T or others said in the past or even today... or who said what when.
Last edited:
The point is simple. You do not have the capacity to properly assess the ROOSD model because you cling to the dinosaur Bazant paper BV with religious conviction.
The ROOSD model is the best existing lens through which to examine all other models and claims of the WTC1 and 2 collapse progressions, including Bazant.
The ROOSD model is the best existing lens through which to examine all other models and claims of the WTC1 and 2 collapse progressions, including Bazant.
Quite so, and it's why virtually everybody here has spent the last few years wondering what M_T's point is regarding 9/11 CT.
Perhaps he believes the nature of collapse progression points towards initiation by planned demolition.
Perhaps he believes his analysis shows that the lower floors were 'helped on their way'.
Perhaps he believes that getting everybody to accept that they're not fit to lick his analytical boots means we all must accept his collapse initiation theory without further comment. When he actually states it, that is.
Four years is a long time to wait, and we're going nowhere fast.
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
A three step process for Major_Tom:
Step 1: for Major_Tom, learn how to read introductions and what the authors of papers say what their purpose is.
Step 2: learn how to look at pictures in those papers:
Step 3: Stop pretending to be the smartest person in the room. You're not.
You've noticed that BV uses terms like m(z) to define the mass of the upper block. And then you still claim z is used for something else. Bizarre...
Step 1: for Major_Tom, learn how to read introductions and what the authors of papers say what their purpose is.
Step 2: learn how to look at pictures in those papers:
Step 3: Stop pretending to be the smartest person in the room. You're not.
You've noticed that BV uses terms like m(z) to define the mass of the upper block. And then you still claim z is used for something else. Bizarre...
Last edited:
Who care what he believes? Or what anyone believes...
At this point I repeat... I haven't found to MY satisfaction good explanation for the initiation of the 3 collapses. With respect to 7wtc if the whole bit around col 79 collapsed because heat distorted the beams and pushed the girder and that DID destroy TT1 and TT2.... seems not terribly credible. That is I don't see how the local collapse around the single column 79 at floor 13 can progress throughout the whole structure. From what I understand it simply leads to *global collapse* and that's sort of a leap I don't see. Color me dense.
Same for the twins... I don't see local collapses or sagging of some floor trusses causing the entire top to drop. I find another leap I can see.
Too many leaps of faith.
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
No I haven't, but I will read it. My sense is that if a single perimeter column were to drop... the one below it would have to move out of the way... plane damage? Maybe.
If it did drop one need to consider that the trusses were NOT connected to a column but to a channel section (I believe) which was cantilevered about 3' front the columns on the upper floors. The length of the cantilever was related to the column dim which was 52" low down and only perhaps 18" on the high floors where the plane hit. All the pre fab floor sections were the same (length) and so the floors had to have the trusses at 80" OC connected to the cantilevered support channel. OK
So what would happen if a column was removed below column 503? Would the beam stub outlooker to the belt channel shear? I dunno. If it didn't how many trusses would be pulled down? and how far?
What is the weak link there? Would the 5/8" bolts at the truss ends shear? Withdraw from the connection? Bend the seat?
I don't have the answers... but it looks like your cartoons present a 1D view of a single truss pulling a much more robust wall assembly inward. And of course the trusses were made from 1/4" thick angles... My intuition tells me that this would not pull the wall panels inward ESPECIALLY when the slabs also had to be crushed... or some sort of string hinge was created.
Sorry... I don't see it.
Intuitively to me this was not an inward bowing but a buckling cause when loads were transferred to panels above. If I recall correctly the notion was that the axial forces in the facade were redistributed around the openings (plane wounds) and so the surrounding panels were seeing greater than normal axial loading... this would bring them closer to buckling.... whatever initial safety factor had eroded.
Further... if there was unloading or loss of core columns (other possible causes aside from plane strike) their service loads would also have to find new load paths... and perhaps this load too found its way to the perimeter facade/columns via the hat truss. And so maybe the new loads led to buckling... exceeding the safety factor of the facade columns.
To me this would have taken time because it was a result of a progressive failure of the core... slowly unloading / transferring loads to the facade until the facade's FOS was exceeded and it buckled and of course location related to the failed core columns and the hat truss connections to the facade.
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
Let me know when you actually do read it, as most of your issues are addressed within the text.
I see problems with this explanation.
The section with the two trusses connected to the center column is nothing to do with the real world.
The facade columns were not HSS with 5/16" thick wall. The wall thickness was more like .5" or .625... the facade thicknesses were "blended" because of the staggering. And the *webs* and *flanges of the *box columns* of the facade were not uniform either... and not every column was connected to a truss... but every other one.
How many columns would have to drop to pull the facade in? What about the belt girder?
My cartoons may not be accurate... but are MORE accurate than your depiction I think.
And finally... the plane knocked out the facade AND the core column opposite... what is being being pulled the facade just above the hole? And what about the rest of the 80% of the facade... what is pulling that in?
I will read it all.
Last edited:
- Status