OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[fess]

I posted this in another thread, but maybe I should post it here also.


Let me state first of all. I am not a structural engineer, electrical engineer, or any other kind of engineer for that matter. However, not being an engineer does not stop me from wondering why we are posting up all sorts of equations and statements of physics about CD before we have even answered some very basic questions. For instance:

What type of explosives, and how much of said explosives would be necessary to destroy the critical support members in the towers to insure global collapse?

How were the explosives transported into the towers and to the various areas of the towers where these critical members were located?

How many people would have to be involved in the operation?

How did these people gain access to the inaccessible areas where these explosives were to be planted? Some of these areas and columns were in close proximity to high speed elevators… were the not?

How were all of these operations carried out without raising any suspicion of the thousands of individuals working in the towers on any given day?

How was the unavoidable boom… boom… boom… boom of a CD masked so that no one would hear it?

These and other questions have been asked before, and I have yet seen any verifiable answer that covers the above questions, especially from the “truther” side.

 

[R.Mackey]

Let me state first of all. I am not a structural engineer, electrical engineer, or any other kind of engineer for that matter. However, not being an engineer does not stop me from wondering why we are posting up all sorts of equations and statements of physics about CD before we have even answered some very basic questions. [...]

I'm just going to guess, however, seeing as how you have The Spook in your avatar, that you do have some relevant experience that most Truthers lack.

 

[fess]

I'm just going to guess, however, seeing as how you have The Spook in your avatar, that you do have some relevant experience that most Truthers lack.

I owe you a beer... or two.

 

[Dave Rogers]

There was more than a whiff of a hypothesis in the first post in this thread, but you're too busy smelling your own farts to notice.

Congratulations on a lack of reading comprehension. The first post in this thread outlines a possible overall collapse mechanism and asserts that no evidence of deliberate demolition is available from study of the gross features of the collapse. There isn't the faintest hint of a viable inside job hypothesis, which would have to propose at least a physically feasible mechanism by which demolition devices could have been installed without being observed, survived the fires and then destroyed columns without audible reports. As long as those points aren't all covered by a coherent narrative, rather than by assuming contradictory elements to satisfy different requirements, then there is no hypothesis.

For example: Suppose a truther says that only explosives could have caused the collapse, because precise timing was required, and that thermite could have severed the core columns silently. That is not a hypothesis. It's a pair of contradictory elements put together to present the appearance of a hypothesis. And, so far, that's all the truth movement has ever come up with. Until someone can think of a coherent hypothesis, this debate hasn't even started.

Dave

 

[bardamu]

Congratulations on a lack of reading comprehension. The first post in this thread outlines a possible overall collapse mechanism and asserts that no evidence of deliberate demolition is available from study of the gross features of the collapse.

Not sure what you consider to be the "gross features of the collapse", but the OP certainly doesn't assert that the core would have collapsed due to gravity - only the office space and perimeter columns. It seems fairly obvious that the purpose of Major Tom's paper is to eliminate any stuctural elements that would not need to be targeted, in preparation for a hypothesis on how the core might have been targeted.

 

[beachnut]

... physics about CD before we have even answered some very basic questions. For instance:

What type of explosives, and how much of said explosives would be necessary to destroy the critical support members in the towers to insure global collapse?

How were the explosives transported into the towers and to the various areas of the towers where these critical members were located?

How many people would have to be involved in the operation?

How did these people gain access to the inaccessible areas where these explosives were to be planted? Some of these areas and columns were in close proximity to high speed elevators… were the not?

How were all of these operations carried out without raising any suspicion of the thousands of individuals working in the towers on any given day?

How was the unavoidable boom… boom… boom… boom of a CD masked so that no one would hear it?

These and other questions have been asked before, and I have yet seen any verifiable answer that covers the above questions, especially from the “truther” side.

Rational thinking is not part of the SPOD (stupid papers of delusions). SPOD goal is to pave the way for idiotic CD delusions to spread to the gullible and keep the gravy train of idiotic paranoid conspiracy theories thriving for the select few who are taking donation and selling lies; Gage, Griffith, CIT, Balsamo and others encourage moronic conclusions like you find in Major Tom's latest "loaded diaper" paper. Jones moved from "smoking gun" to "loaded gun" and is better titled, "loaded diaper".

OOS paper is SPOD; see the conclusion from the paper reference in the OP if you choose to increase the traffic at the woo debate web site.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Not sure what you consider to be the "gross features of the collapse", but the OP certainly doesn't assert that the core would have collapsed due to gravity - only the office space and perimeter columns.

The OP can assert what it wants. The core was not designed to be free-standing, and only Tony Szamboti believes it could have stood unsupported based on some totally inappropriate analogies with drastically different structures. In any case, a theory that posits an initial collapse of the office space and perimeter columns necessarily excludes initiation in the core; it reduces to a theory that explosives were planted to demolish the core deliberately after the remainder of the buildings had already collapsed naturally, which is so absurd that it's not even worth commenting on.

Dave

 

[bardamu]

I posted this in another thread, but maybe I should post it here also.


Let me state first of all. I am not a structural engineer, electrical engineer, or any other kind of engineer for that matter. However, not being an engineer does not stop me from wondering why we are posting up all sorts of equations and statements of physics about CD before we have even answered some very basic questions. For instance:

What type of explosives, and how much of said explosives would be necessary to destroy the critical support members in the towers to insure global collapse?

How were the explosives transported into the towers and to the various areas of the towers where these critical members were located?

How many people would have to be involved in the operation?

How did these people gain access to the inaccessible areas where these explosives were to be planted? Some of these areas and columns were in close proximity to high speed elevators… were the not?

How were all of these operations carried out without raising any suspicion of the thousands of individuals working in the towers on any given day?

How was the unavoidable boom… boom… boom… boom of a CD masked so that no one would hear it?

These and other questions have been asked before, and I have yet seen any verifiable answer that covers the above questions, especially from the “truther” side.

Are you sure you posted this in the right thread? The essence of the OOS propagation model is that it doesn't require CD.

 

[bardamu]

The OP can assert what it wants.

A strange reaction, considering the OP asserts what the debunkers have been asserting all along.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Are you sure you posted this in the right thread? The essence of the OOS propagation model is that it doesn't require CD.

In which case, either it's been posted in the wrong forum - because it has no implications for 9/11 conspiracy theories - or it's a prelude to some further assertion, in which case we all wish Major Tom would get to the point some day.

Dave

 

[femr2]

In which case, either it's been posted in the wrong forum - because it has no implications for 9/11 conspiracy theories - or it's a prelude to some further assertion, in which case we all wish Major Tom would get to the point some day.

Dave

I assume you've actually read it ?

There are quite significant *implications for 9/11 conspiracy theories* within the study, namely a gravity driven mechanism after initiation which destroys the OOS floor regions and the perimeter.

Issues with the interpretation of Bazant et al have been highlighted, and seemingly ignored by those who assert similar gravity driven *theories* (though such theories are not really referenced directly to observables).

There also seems to be resistance to openly accept that ROOSD (or whatever you wish to call the specific mechanism) is a very good match to observables, and is very probably *correct*. More correct than old descriptors, such as *the pancake theory*, which was fatally flawed by attempting to include the initiation mechanism and the core in its scope.

There are still many folk within this forum that suggest things like floor-by-floor explosives, space beams, no planes, nukes.....and yet folk still choose to attack the ROOSD study ? Bizarre. The study does not include initiation, nor core destruction. It does not rule out MIHOP. It does not rule it in either. The point is made that it proves neither. Bazant et al is the same in this sense. It does not include initiation, and so in-and-of-itself doesn't prove one case or t'other.

So...

Who is prepared to state clear answers to MTs questions ?

(Demands for detail which is clearly off-topic are likely only going to be answered on a different thread, so I see little point repeating such requests ad nauseum)

 

[bardamu]

In which case, either it's been posted in the wrong forum - because it has no implications for 9/11 conspiracy theories - or it's a prelude to some further assertion, in which case we all wish Major Tom would get to the point some day.

I'm sure he's even more impatient than you are. He's made several criticisms of Bazant's papers but the debunkers here, whose arguments largely depends on those papers, are refusing to either accept or challenge the criticisms. In spite of being experts in reading comprehension, they can't even fathom out which aspects of the WTC collapses are covered in the papers.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I assume you've actually read it ?

There are quite significant *implications for 9/11 conspiracy theories* within the study, namely a gravity driven mechanism after initiation which destroys the OOS floor regions and the perimeter.

If it is established beyond doubt that a gravity driven mechanism is capable of producing a subset of the phenomena observed on 9/11, then that subset is therefore no longer relevant to the question of who was responsible for the attacks. Neither the US Government nor al-Qaeda is able to control gravity. MT is seeking to exclude areas from consideration. Which is fine; but having conceded that those points have no bearing on his hypotheses, it would be nice for him to move on to the points that he does consider relevant.

I'm sure he's even more impatient than you are. He's made several criticisms of Bazant's papers but the debunkers here, whose arguments largely depends on those papers, are refusing to either accept or challenge the criticisms.

His criticisms, however, are irrelevant to the topic of this forum, since they only differentiate between different non-conspiratorial explanations of collapse propagation. His arguments would be more suited to an engineering forum at this stage. If he has a further line of argument that's relevant, it would be nice to see it. In short, I wish he'd **** or get off the pan.

Dave

 

[carlitos]

Yes, do let's stay on topic. Would Major_Tom and / or femr2 please enlighten us as to their hypothesis that better explains the events of 9/11/01?

 

[Carll68]

Of Course Not....

Yes, do let's stay on topic. Would Major_Tom and / or femr2 please enlighten us as to their hypothesis that better explains the events of 9/11/01?

Of course they won't ! For goodness sake, femr fraud - who is constantly incorrect in almost every single post across multiple threads - can not even answer a simple 8th grade physics question correctly.

Look back through this thread for evidence. it is classic. Heck,
Dave and Ryan had to educate him on the conservation of momentum. Nope, not kidding.

He also thinks people make up ID's 11 months ago to 'mess with him' in the present! Read through this thread

Kids a chronic Charlatan with no clue on physics whatsoever.

Just a mess.

 

[bardamu]

His criticisms, however, are irrelevant to the topic of this forum, since they only differentiate between different non-conspiratorial explanations of collapse propagation. His arguments would be more suited to an engineering forum at this stage.

It sounds like, for the purposes of debunking 9/11 truth, the first non-conspiratorial explanation that comes along is fine, even though it might be flawed.

 

[bardamu]

Of course they won't ! For goodness sake, femr fraud - who is constantly incorrect in almost every single post across multiple threads - can not even answer a simple 8th grade physics question correctly.

Look back through this thread for evidence. it is classic. Heck,
Dave and Ryan had to educate him on the conservation of momentum. Nope, not kidding.

He also thinks people make up ID's 11 months ago to 'mess with him' in the present! Read through this thread

Kids a chronic Charlatan with no clue on physics whatsoever.

Just a mess.

What an ironic reply to a plea to keep on topic!

 

[Dave Rogers]

It sounds like, for the purposes of debunking 9/11 truth, the first non-conspiratorial explanation that comes along is fine, even though it might be flawed.

Given that no coherent conspiratorial explanation has ever been advanced, even a flawed one is infinitely superior.

Dave

 

[bardamu]

Given that no coherent conspiratorial explanation has ever been advanced, even a flawed one is infinitely superior.

If you invested a little time in refining the original flawed, non-conspiratorial explanation, you might be able to convince some of the 1202 architectural and engineering professionals who've signed up to Richard Gage's petition.

 

[Newtons Bit]

If you invested a little time in refining the original flawed, non-conspiratorial explanation, you might be able to convince some of the 1202 architectural and engineering professionals who've signed up to Richard Gage's petition.

Could you please post some of these professionals' papers showing their positions and arguments for CD? Thanks.