OOS Collapse Propagation Model
- Thread starter Major_Tom
- Start date
- Status
Seymour Butz
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 884
How about the FIRST post I responded to?
Should anyone give respect, any respect at all, to a question from incredulity?
Do you agree that at the very least, his question should have been accompanied by SOME type of engineering basis for his incredulity?
Do you agree that that at the very least, his incredulity should be supported by *something*?
Do you agree that at the very least, his incredulity should have been accompanied by a statement like, " after studying the AISC and taking a couple of night classes on structural engineering, it is impossible for the collapse to happen that fast because of reason A, B, C..."?
Jeeze, at least Tony-da-Twoofer tries. You guys count pixels.
But of course you don't think so. Your incredulity is enough.
So go ahead and repeat it to your heart's comtent. We will all continue to laugh at you, and snicker at you, and point out your idiocy until you give anyone reason to respond to you.
Last edited:
What incredulity ?
The questions relate to this segment of footage...
MT has asked questions about its content...
Major_Tom said:
It would be more productive if you ventured to provide answers to the questions. There is no incredulity involved.
Seymour Butz
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 884
Look deeeeeeeeeep into my eyes....
Until you can read for comprehension, you won't be anyhting more than a cat toy round here.....
No thanks. Shouting, or increasing font size is bound to achieve your desired effect, right ? LOL.
You quoted MTs questions and ignored them. I'm interested in answers to those questions.
If MT decides to answer your question, he'll do so.
Seymour Butz
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 884
Well aren't you precious. You want answers.
So didn't I answer him. Let's see, maybe that's cuz when asked for any engineering basis for being incredulous about how fast the collapse progressed...... guess what happened?
He ignored it and just went on asking questions about something else altogher different. Imagine that? A truther deflecting a question that requires them to confront, right here out in the open where everyone can see it, their cognitive dissonance and/or lying.
So NOW, I want MY question answered : does he, or you, or anyone, have engineering based support for questioning how fast the collapse happened, or do you have just your incredulity?
I don't have very high hopes that an admission of pure incredulity - despite the fact that everyone sees that this is the sole reason - is the only basis.
Prove me wrong by bringing what I ask for. You'll be the first. Failure is an admission of delusions shaping your views.
The ROOSD study describes a gravity driven process of descent.
Your increasing anger and frustration is clearly misguided.
You quoted MTs questions and ignored them. I'm interested in answers to those questions. If you don't have any, that's fine.
Your increasing anger and frustration is clearly misguided.
You quoted MTs questions and ignored them. I'm interested in answers to those questions. If you don't have any, that's fine.
fess
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,425
Well, because they didn't.
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
What order did they drop in then ?
Last edited:
Seymour Butz
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 884
Well aren't you precious. You want answers.
So didn't I answer him. Let's see, maybe that's cuz when asked for any engineering basis for being incredulous about how fast the collapse progressed...... guess what happened?
He ignored it and just went on asking questions about something else altogher different. Imagine that? A truther deflecting a question that requires them to confront, right here out in the open where everyone can see it, their cognitive dissonance and/or lying.
So NOW, I want MY question answered : does he, or you, or anyone, have engineering based support for questioning how fast the collapse happened, or do you have just your incredulity?
I don't have very high hopes that an admission of pure incredulity - despite the fact that everyone sees that this is the sole reason - is the only basis.
Prove me wrong by bringing what I ask for. You'll be the first. Failure is an admission of delusions shaping your views.
*** See how this works now? When you avoid a question that you can't answer without showing your delusions, it gets asked again, just to drive home the point that you and the good Major, indeed, have nothing but your own personal brand of incredulity and delsuions that you are basing this on***
Your presence in the thread is rather pointless then.
I guess I'll have to type this s.l.o.w.l.y. ...
This thread...is based upon a study of descent...termed ROOSD...Runaway Open Office Space Destruction.
It describes a post-initiation gravity driven process through which the outside core flooring and perimeter are destroyed, to ground, via gravity alone. Gravity in that sentence enough times for you ? Gravity. Nothing else, but gravity.
What on EARTH are you making a fuss about collapse progression time for ? You mean timing of a sub-element of initiation btw.
He can do as he pleases. You still haven't answered his question. Give it a whirl.
To answer the question you are NOT asking at the moment, but that you SHOULD be...(you lost your context ages ago when you became frustrated.)
I have no issue with rapid progression of initiation zone failures, though the behaviour of some of those failures, such as the perimeter kick-out and mid panel severing along the West and East faces, requires deeper discussion at some point.
Why not describe the sequence of initiation zone failures eh ?
(Any problem with my oft repeated sequence ?)
The thread is about a paper used to back in the moronic CD delusion you and Major Tom have.
LOL _ from the paper, Major Tom's paper; the delusion of CD
What engineering schools did you and Major Tom graduate from? When will you and Major Tom drop the CD delusion? Where is your evidence for CD mentioned in the Major Tom paper of woo? The terrorists have more engineering skill than the truth movement, and UBL may of dropped out! lol, you guys apologize for terrorists who are capable of taking action and completing a mission; you guys can't get past spewing idiotic delusions. Terrorist beat you in completing a mission in the real world, you guys are stuck in a fantasy world. Why do you apologize for terrorists who seek your demise; or are you and Major Tom of Islam. I suspect you and Major Tom have some political bias or problem like Bigfoot believers, where reality and truth are second to your moronic claims of conspiracy.
The major defense for Major Tom has been attacking Bazant's work, or NIST, which he fails to comprehend. Desperation is attacking other work to defend fantasy nonsense. This thread is about desperation, and the inability to back in CD after 8 years of failure. ... like Bigfoot; the movements should merge, both are based on fantasy.
Last edited:
Seymour Butz
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 884
You mean inconvenient, since I have pointed out that MT has supplied no support for his incredulity, nor will he ever.
This is why you should read for comprehension, the entire thread. MT asked this, not me.
So can I. So I'll continue to ask him an uncomfortable question until he admits that the obvious-to-everyone answer is of course"incredulity".
Your singular ability to forget past posts is remarkable.
Your doing the same thing - asking the same question - and expecting a different outcome.
And we know what that is the definition of......
No. I meant exactly what I posted.
No, he asked you...
Major_Tom said:
You have spent your time since then making an issue of *how fast the collapse progressed*. A different metric.
Incredulity is not a description of the process by which you think the initiation buckling progression rate ensued. The answer to the question is not incredulity. Try again.
... it was from Tom's paper; the thread topic. I thought you had read the paper.
Do you support the CD conclusion of Major Tom, as he tries to back in the CD delusion? You don't support CD as your conclusion on the WTC? Are you supporting Major Tom's insane claim of CD?
http://femr2.ucoz.com/index/0-4
Oops, you support woo. What else can you do? You support liars and call their insane nonsense, "technical papers". lol
I know. You did not include a name on the quote, which immediately followed a quote by me. Please ensure you make quote source clear (as requested above by Tricky)
I have.
The study does not conclude *CD*. It makes the specific point that it proves neither *CD* nor *Not CD*.
That's a hoot, coming from you. I think it was obvious where the quote came from. Without the edit. Really!
Seymour, calm down. You question (?) : "does he, or you, or anyone, have engineering based support for questioning how fast the collapse happened, or do you have just your incredulity?"
Seymour, we are capable of measuring how fast the initial column failure must have progressed through the core while neither you or the NIST seem capable of even describing it correctly.
Using the NIST report you would assume the failure progressed from south to north between a tilt angle of 0 to 8 degrees. If you understand how bady the NIST screwed that up, you may realize that they have no freaking idea how fast. Why not measure it before you defend it?
Consider that if you use a primitive rigid model with an axis of rotation through the north face, 98th floor, a 1 degree tilt before total failure means the south wall only had a chance to fall 4 ft before the north wall starts to fall.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WTC1 upper portion models: Rigid body and deforming body models.
THe following gif is an excellent tool to see how a rigid rotating upper "block" appear at various angles.
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/1364/tiltvsvismeasurement.gif
You can see that nobody can mistake a 1 degree tilt for an 8 degree tilt. Each spandrel supports one floor slab. It is interesting to see how the floor slabs overlap at various angles. You can see that at 1 degree the the first floor slabs are still pretty far from making their first contact.
A non-rigid model will allow for the core and perimeters to move separately though they are linked through the OOS flooring. This model is much closer to what really happened.
Seymour, I want to look very closely at the initial WTC1 collapse initiation sequence to measure tilt and column failure sequence. That is something the NIST obviously did not do.
The NIST loosely describes the WTC1 early motion as a rigid body tilt. In reality it was pure deformation. The correct failure sequence can tell us where the downward movement was originally observed: Along a perimeter or within the core.
If you have never measured lateral propagation rates and you have no clue over what time frame all column failed, why defend the numbers as natural? Seymour, always good to have numbers before you defend them.
Seymour, we are capable of measuring how fast the initial column failure must have progressed through the core while neither you or the NIST seem capable of even describing it correctly.
Using the NIST report you would assume the failure progressed from south to north between a tilt angle of 0 to 8 degrees. If you understand how bady the NIST screwed that up, you may realize that they have no freaking idea how fast. Why not measure it before you defend it?
Consider that if you use a primitive rigid model with an axis of rotation through the north face, 98th floor, a 1 degree tilt before total failure means the south wall only had a chance to fall 4 ft before the north wall starts to fall.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WTC1 upper portion models: Rigid body and deforming body models.
THe following gif is an excellent tool to see how a rigid rotating upper "block" appear at various angles.
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/1364/tiltvsvismeasurement.gif
You can see that nobody can mistake a 1 degree tilt for an 8 degree tilt. Each spandrel supports one floor slab. It is interesting to see how the floor slabs overlap at various angles. You can see that at 1 degree the the first floor slabs are still pretty far from making their first contact.
A non-rigid model will allow for the core and perimeters to move separately though they are linked through the OOS flooring. This model is much closer to what really happened.
Seymour, I want to look very closely at the initial WTC1 collapse initiation sequence to measure tilt and column failure sequence. That is something the NIST obviously did not do.
The NIST loosely describes the WTC1 early motion as a rigid body tilt. In reality it was pure deformation. The correct failure sequence can tell us where the downward movement was originally observed: Along a perimeter or within the core.
If you have never measured lateral propagation rates and you have no clue over what time frame all column failed, why defend the numbers as natural? Seymour, always good to have numbers before you defend them.
Last edited:
In the gif of the west wall, we have an even row of dust/smoke ejections along a specific floor. It must be the expulsion of air from between the first 2 colliding slabs, no?
What other natural interpretation can you give it? The ejection row must correspond to the movement of the lowest moving slab from the "upper block", true?
WHich portion of the 99th floor slab is moving downward at this time, OOS west flooring or core flooring?
Could the early even ejections be due to the lowest moving core slab? If the OOS west slab, how can it move separately from the perimeter to which it is attached?
What other natural interpretation can you give it? The ejection row must correspond to the movement of the lowest moving slab from the "upper block", true?
WHich portion of the 99th floor slab is moving downward at this time, OOS west flooring or core flooring?
Could the early even ejections be due to the lowest moving core slab? If the OOS west slab, how can it move separately from the perimeter to which it is attached?
- Status