Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

[uke2se]

femr, the mode of collapse you're describing would not produce this:

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/site1102_1.jpg[/qimg]

It would not produce these ejections of dust. It would not pulverize things. It would not disappear the office furniture or the people. We would see pancaking and much more of it.

Your model is not in accord with the visual evidence.

Ergo, please stop it. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[ergo]

Really, uke? Does that picture look like pancaking collapse to you?

 

[femr2]

femr, the mode of collapse you're describing would not produce this

It's in front of your face...

A) South side crush front

B) North side crush front

C) Trailing perimeter and core destruction

You can see that the perimeter above (A) is still intact. The *pancaking* is occurring inside, and is far ahead of the trailing debris.


Take some time to absorb what I have just shown you....with your own image.

 

[uke2se]

Really, uke? Does that picture look like pancaking collapse to you?

Yes.

 

[ergo]

It's in front of your face...

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/8480632.png[/qimg]

A) South side crush front

B) North side crush front

???

What crush front are we looking at here?

Please provide evidence of this other crush front that you claim.

C) Trailing perimeter and core destruction

You can see that the perimeter above (A) is still intact. The *pancaking* is occurring inside, and is far ahead of the trailing debris.

in your imagination. Unless you have evidence.

Pancaking would not produce the vertical upwards ejections that we see coming out the top of the building.

 

[ergo]

Yes.

Can you point out to us where in the picture you see the floors stacking one on top of another?

 

[uke2se]

Pancaking would not produce the vertical upwards ejections that we see coming out the top of the building.

Jesus Hans Christ, there are no upwards ejections!

See, this is why you should never base your argument on a single picture.

What you see is part of the structure trailing the main collapse.

 

[uke2se]

Can you point out to us where in the picture you see the floors stacking one on top of another?

That's not visible in the picture as it is a picture of the outside of the building while the pancaking takes place on the inside.

You asked me if it looked like a pancake collapse to me, and since we already know it's a pancake collapse, in that the floors pancaked, it sure looks like a pancake collapse to me.

 

[leftysergeant]

femr, the mode of collapse you're describing would not produce this:

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/site1102_1.jpg[/qimg]

That's just your opinion. To anybody who has demolished even a concrete slab, it looks natural that there would be that much dust, even withoput all the sheet rock.

It would not produce these ejections of dust.

Of course it would. The dust was piling up faster than it could fall, so it had to go somewhere. Since it is relatively fluid, it would move up any wall before it could go out over the top. Notice, too, that some of the dust is being pulled along behind failed panels of perimeter columns.

It would not pulverize things.

As someone who has broken up concrete objecxts, I assure you thast you cannot break concrete without pulverizing some of it. You have multi-ton slabs of it colliding here. It gets dusty.

It would not disappear the office furniture or the people.

Of course it would, just like a giant blender with a thousand or so whirling blades.

We would see pancaking and much more of it.

You arer assuming, again, that the floors give way at both ends simultaneously. They could not, just because of the way they were attached. They would not fall straight down. Air resistance alone would cause the heavier end to fall faster. There would be some randomness to the distribution of weight on each succedinng floor. There were pancakes in the lower levels where air resistance was increased and the action had become more symetrical.

Your model is not in accord with the visual evidence.

Yours is way off, assuming you have one.

 

[ergo]

Jesus Hans Christ, there are no upwards ejections!

See, this is why you should never base your argument on a single picture.

What you see is part of the structure trailing the main collapse.

Please provide evidence of your claim. To anyone else, this is a dust plume.

 

[femr2]

???

I think that's the problem.

What crush front are we looking at here?

The right hand side of each line is level with ejections on the West face at the bottom level of the specified crush front. If you study video you will see the behaviour clearer. Spend some time doing so.

Please provide evidence of this other crush front that you claim.

Just did. Animated GIF allows you to see it in action.

Pancaking would not produce the vertical upwards ejections that we see coming out the top of the building.

There are no *vertical upwards* ejections. What you see is a velocity differential between debris which started falling earlier than debris ejected later on, in conjunction with negative pressure suction effects.

If you trace the position of any individual pieces, you'll not find any significant *upwards* motion.

 

[leftysergeant]

You asked me if it looked like a pancake collapse to me, and since we already know it's a pancake collapse, in that the floors pancaked, it sure looks like a pancake collapse to me.

Pancaking is most evident in the initiation of the south tower collapse, when dust is expelled from succediung floors.

 

[ergo]

That's not visible in the picture as it is a picture of the outside of the building while the pancaking takes place on the inside.

You asked me if it looked like a pancake collapse to me, and since we already know it's a pancake collapse, in that the floors pancaked, it sure looks like a pancake collapse to me.

There's nothing in the picture that suggests this is a pancake collapse, and yet uke2se says that this "looks like" a pancake collapse. He says it "looks like" a pancake collapse, because he knows it is a pancake collapse. How he *knows* this, we're not yet sure, since neither NIST nor Bazant suggest it was a pancake collapse. In fact, NIST expressly rejected the notion that it was a pancake collapse.

 

[ergo]

The right hand side of each line is level with ejections on the West face at the bottom level of the specified crush front. If you study video you will see the behaviour clearer. Spend some time doing so.

What crush front are we looking at, femr2? What side of the building are we looking at?

Just did. Animated GIF allows you to see it in action.

You've only shown some conjectured drawing describing what you think is happening. Where's the evidence?

There are no *vertical upwards* ejections. What you see is a velocity differential between debris which started falling earlier than debris ejected later on, in conjunction with negative pressure suction effects.

No, it's obviously a dust plume showing vertical ejection. The shape of its head suggests propulsion rather than suction.

 

[femr2]

There's nothing in the picture that suggests this is a pancake collapse

Yes, there is...

and yet uke2se says that this "looks like" a pancake collapse. He says it "looks like" a pancake collapse, because he knows it is a pancake collapse.

I agree that is not a good standpoint.

NIST expressly rejected the notion that it was a pancake collapse.

They rejected the *pancake theory*, which is not quite the same thing. Them saying *no pancaking* would be yet another thing they got wrong.

The *pancake theory* was very flawed, as it specified the mode of initital failure, and included the core.

Again, take some time out and read the ROOSD study. Then stop wasting your time on descent and focus on initiation if that is your wont.

 

[femr2]

What crush front are we looking at, femr2? What side of the building are we looking at?

You are either deliberately dense or can't read. Right hand end of each annotated red line. West face.

You've only shown some conjectured drawing describing what you think is happening. Where's the evidence?

the911forum.freeforums.org

Take your time.

No, it's obviously a dust plume showing vertical ejection. The shape of its head suggests propulsion rather than suction.

No.

This discussion is going nowhere.

I'll help you further, but not until you've:

a) Answered all my questions in the last 30 or so posts.
b) Gone and done some actaul analysis of video, rather than playing dense and waving your hands around (as you can't possibly be as dense as you seem)
c) Admitted each error you have made along the way and concede everything you have learned.

Later.

 

[ergo]

Again, take some time out and read the ROOSD study. Then stop wasting your time on descent and focus on initiation if that is your wont.

I don't need to do either, because I know a structural steel building can't descend through itself naturally (while pulverizing itself) in under 15 seconds, no matter what mode of collapse.

 

[femr2]

I don't need to do either, because I know a structural steel building can't descend through itself naturally (while pulverizing itself) in under 15 seconds, no matter what mode of collapse.

There is no point in trying to help you out of your hole.

MODS: Please split out the last few pages from Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world.

 

[ergo]

You are either deliberately dense or can't read. Right hand end of each annotated red line. West face.

So, we are looking at the north side of the building.

Well, already we can see you've drawn line B, the North side crush front, far below where the crush front is seen in the actual picture. I guess you are suggesting that the crush front is internal. That's fine. And you are somehow able to intuit where the crush front is, internally, on the south side.

It's find to guess at all this, but I don't find this analysis believable or useful, for the reasons I state above.

 

[ergo]

MODS: Please split out the last few pages from Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world.

Or maybe just femr2's posts, since he is arguing his own model of collapse here, with the crush-down scenario borrowed for his "internal processes" from Bazant.