OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[twinstead]

achimspok come up with something better, in as much detail as the NIST theory, that makes more sense when ALL the evidence is considered together.

 

[pgimeno]

Well, we need a better resolution of that video. I strongly doubt that you highlighted some smoke movement from 93 for 2 reasons. That movement is somehow jerky even in all frames. It looks like a result of video compression. That jerky movement fades into the bright smoke in the sunlight which has to be distant to the wall. So I consider that the smoke from 1 floor below and the center of the wall should be more distant than the smoke that emerged right there. That smoke would float to the left before it reaches the sunlight. So we cannot be sure from that poor video but (reason 2) NIST had the full resolution video and didn't mention 93. They sometimes mention 94 without 95 or they mention 95 without mentioning 94. Probably just a failure.

Near the corner, the sunlight is not that distant. With some work the exact angle with the façade might be determined and thus have an idea of the distance, but I don't feel like taking that work.

What the arrow I placed points to looks to me like genuine movement to the left of the smoke on either 93 or 94, and yes, it's also affected by compression artifacts. I'm downloading the 85 Gb NIST collection; if I have an idea of the filename I can force that one to download first (otherwise the download will take about 10 days to complete).

And let me highlight a fragment of a quote that MT has posted from the NIST report:

Closer inspection of this video, as well as others, shows many additional effects of the pressure pulse at other locations on the tower.​

That, to me, is an implicit mention.

I don't think that NIST made these nice 10:18 graphics to confuse the changes at 10:18. You are right, they probably just fed the "simulation" with these data.
You used these graphics to say that virtually nothing happened at 10:18 because - look at these graphics! - there is fire and there are a lot of broken windows. Yes, that was the end of 10:18 but it is no argument for "nothing unusual".

My main argument was that the lack of a smoke ejection on floor 93 was mainly due to the windows in place and the lack of fire, therefore it was not unusual that that floor didn't show plumes. I also linked it with the possibility of the elevator doors transmitting the pressure pulse.

 

[femr2]

I'm downloading the 85 Gb NIST collection; if I have an idea of the filename I can force that one to download first (otherwise the download will take about 10 days to complete).

Uncheck everything, then check all the thumbs.db files.

Use them to help select what videos you want first.

Remember to check everything again afterwards or the network leech flag will probably raise.

 

[achimspok]

achimspok come up with something better, in as much detail as the NIST theory, that makes more sense when ALL the evidence is considered together.

Turn over the evidence, give me 7 years and it will be done. Meanwhile I stick with the eyewitness accounts, the measurable accelerations of different building parts, the sway to the west first, the fireball 10 minutes prior to the collapse (that's probably not the only one but the only one that was live on TV) and finally with e.g. no trace of the bunker tank or the fuel even if it should be found at the 1st floor because anything else just fell straight down on it without any pressure.
(...but I'm afraid Myriad will send it to AAH because it's off topic, right?)

 

[achimspok]

The pressure pulse video of the NIST Cumulus Video Database is incomplete. The beginning is missing. Nevertheless, the 92 west ejection isn't smoke but material.

and it really looks like the "93 smoke" was already in the air before it reached the elevation and the sun light.

 

[beachnut]

The pressure pulse video of the NIST Cumulus Video Database is incomplete. The beginning is missing. Nevertheless, the 92 west ejection isn't smoke but material.

and it really looks like the "93 smoke" was already in the air before it reached the elevation and the sun light.

What does this mean for OOS? Looked like a jumper. When will you 911 truth CD guys finally figure out you failed 9 years ago?

How does this fit with OOS?

 

[Major_Tom]

Achimspok, do you have any clips covering the SW corner pulse?

I believe the WPIX clip is part of the FOIA released material.

 

[femr2]

Achimspok, do you have any clips covering the SW corner pulse?

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/19/10_18_8_97.JPG[/qimg]

I believe the WPIX clip is part of the FOIA released material.

It's near the start of "WPIX Dub4 15.avi".

I'll sort a short video.

I should be able to give you a timing relative to WTC 1 initiation in seconds.

 

[femr2]

Timing: ~9 minutes 39 seconds before WTC 1 release.

Will sort the video a bit later. It goes *poof*, then not a lot.

 

[Major_Tom]

In May, on the second page of the OOS collapse Propagation Model thread, when people were mixing BZ and BV like they were making sausage, I wrote:

The quotes from the paper, given by Basquearch:

"Correcting Mistakes Resulting From Overzealous Attachment to Bazant & Verdure, Bazant & Le Formulations of Progressive Collapse.Bazant and Verdure (BV) and Bazant and Le were written at a time when almost nothing was known about the WTC1 surviving core and perimeter sheet behavior.

Since BV was written some significant features of the collapse were observed and verified, showing that many of the concepts used in the paper like an indestructible upper block and a "crush down" happening before a "crush up" to be be incorrect. BV describes the downward continued collapse propagation of the building to be the result of columns buckling and rebuckling. The collapse propagation rate is taken as the rate of column rebuckling."
..............

Yes, these are true statements. If I was referring to BZ it would be untrue in a sense. BV derives equations of motion to match real building behavior. He derives a 1-D crush down equation based on continuous buckling and rebuckling of columns. This assumption is expressed in 2 ways within the derivation:

1) In his derivation of frictional force F
2) The way he treats the driving mass

This is different than the quote you gave, which is from BZ, a paper with a very different purpose and argument. The term most optimistic case for survival belongs with the BZ argument and has nothing to do with the BV equations of motion.
.......................

The concept of crush down, followed by crush up is from BV and BL. In BL he claims to prove that crush down must be complete before crush up can begin. If we read the study in the OP, that clearly did not happen.

Thanks for the feedback and let me know if you disagree with what I wrote.

to which I received about 15 pages of insults insisting that I am wrong.

I'll use this thread to record all the incorrect claims to which I was subject (to which we were all subject) for the last 8 months.

The first signs of regular JREF posters being able to distinguish BZ from BV, BL and BLGB are beginning to emerge in January, 2011, 3 years after beginning to play expert on the subject.


I believe the people most to blame are those on this forum that pose as persons of knowledge. They lead the little sheep.

 

[Major_Tom]

If you want people to keep interacting with you, stop moving goal posts over and over again. This is what you wrote.











You are a lying liar. We challenged you on your fraudulent claim on the buckled columns concept. YOU brought up the upper block / lower block. This is a non-sequitur. It would make an equal amount of sense for you to bring up Bazant's middle name as an argument. Unfortunately, the way you do it you just come across as a dishonest charlatan. Which, by the way, you are.

I was apparently out of line to bring up the upper and lower "blocks", a central concept in BV, BL and BLGB.

And you are welcome for pointing out the mistakes.

I am confused. Does this mean I can freely call people frauds and charlatans without breaking any rules?

I used the phrase "not intelligent enough" against one poster and was found in violation of rule 6.

 

[Major_Tom]

Except, of course, that a large number of the connector flanges from the fire floors (viz. the collapse initiation floors) survived, and none of them were cut at all, let alone by thermite.

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.

Page 3, one of R Mackey's shining moments.

Later, when the smoke clears, we find the OOS collapse propagation model is the only known model which matches all observables.

Even JREF posters now seem to agree. What is not yet realized is this model stands in direct contradiction to BV, BL and BLGB.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Hello,

I am requesting feedback on a paper about a model of the collapse progression of WTC1. The first draft is complete and is available for viewing

.

when can we expect you to complete, peer review and publish this paper?

 

[dafydd]

.

when can we expect you to complete, peer review and publish this paper?

Round about this time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3xw_u2LGh8

 

[Dragon37]

Page 3, one of R Mackey's shining moments.

Later, when the smoke clears, we find the OOS collapse propagation model is the only known model which matches all observables.

Even JREF posters now seem to agree. What is not yet realized is this model stands in direct contradiction to BV, BL and BLGB.

Wow. Just can't stop beating the dead horse can you? You arrogance is overwhelming. Your "model" is nothing new and yet you still lay claim to it despite members here quoting similar ideas before you even drafted your so called paper. I won't touch your paper until you submit it to a credible journal and it is at minimum peer reviewed. Likely I won't even consider it until credible professionals actually duplicate or confirm your numbers.

I still fail to see what is so important about collapse. It is all models regardless and they are impossible to confirm 100%. What is important is the initiation and what caused it. As beachnut said long ago all it seems like to me is the attempt to back in "CD".

You can whine and witch all you want it only works to make you less believable. Professing that you have all the answers definitely makes me and likely many other just pitch your work aside without consideration. You want respect? Then don't match insults and be so condescending. You don't like and we don't like it and getting emotional will only cause you to lose more and more face/respect.

 

[Major_Tom]

In May, a few days after starting the OOS thread, I asked the following questions to R Mackey and Myriad.

If they were able to answer them correctly, the conversation would have been a short one.

Instead, in January 2011, I still have to tutor the JREF crowd concerning the differences between the BZ argument and the collapse progression model in BV, BL and BLGB.

We'll go over the papers section by section if necessary. You would be able to see some of the mistakes you are making by answering the following 4 questions:


1) In BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs. Does he mean this literally?

2) Do you consider the equations of motion in BL, equations 12 and 17, to be accurate considering the information in the ROOSD study?

3) Is the following statement true or false:

Dr Bazant believes that a crush-down phase must continue to completion before a crush up phase can begin.

If you answer false, please provide evidence to the contrary.

4) Is ROOSD consistent the claims of crush down preceding crush up in BV and BL?


But if you want to drag this out, that's fine by me.
....................................

Guys, you don't have to be a genius to see major holes in BV and BL at this point.

If you have a sense of humor, the Bazant and Le paper is actually very funny in some parts. For me it is hard to believe anyone took this stuff seriously before, but when considering ROOSD, the earnestness behind some of the claims is just plain funny.

Consider from BL:

"So it must be concluded that the simplifying hypothesis of
one-way crushing (i.e., of absence of simultaneous crush-up),
made in the original paper, was perfectly justified and caused
only an imperceptible difference in the results. The crush-up
simultaneous with the crush down is found to have advanced
into the overlying story by only 37 mm for the North Tower
and 26 mm for the South Tower. This means that the initial
crush-up phase terminates when the axial displacement of
columns is only about 10 times larger than their maximum
elastic deformation. Hence, simplifying the analysis by neglecting
the initial two-way crushing phase was correct and
accurate."


Or how about this from BL:

"Blocks C and A can, of course, deform. Yet, contrary to
the discusser’s claim, they may be treated in calculations as
rigid because their elastic deformations are about 1,000 times
smaller than the deformations at the crushing front."


You have to wonder what world Dr Bazant was living in when he wrote this. Yet so many of you, without understanding any of what he is saying, without being able to follow the reasoning, without being able to use a Lagrangian formulation to solve equations of motion for the simplest systems, lecture me on it's meaning.

And you believe it because it was written in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008, and you don't know any better.

 

[Major_Tom]

On page 4 of this thread, the big lie starts to take root.

Here Myriad grabs a quote out of BZ and mixes it with Bazant's collapse progression model, written 5 year later.

Even now, the same BS is being pushed on JREF in the "applicability" thread.

Here y'go:

Abstract: This paper presents a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of the towers of World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001. The analysis shows that if prolonged heating caused the majority of columns of a single floor to lose their load carrying capacity, the whole tower was doomed. The structural resistance is found to be an order of magnitude less than necessary for survival, even though the most optimistic simplifying assumptions are introduced. [emphasis added]

Clever of Bazant, wasn't it, to hide his intentions in the abstract. I mean, who reads those, right?

Respectfully,
Myriad

I asked about BV, he quotes the abstract for BZ.

He will defend this on and off for the next 8 months.


This seems to be a defining momet where the regular posters circle their wagons around a mutant theory having nothing to do with BV, BL and BLGB.

May, 2010. Many clueless even today as the exact same mutant justification rears it's ugly head again.

Ozeco,. can you see the same lies forming again on the other thread?

 

[Major_Tom]

To which I answered quite clearly, just as I'd answer today...

Just so everyone knows, BV and BL are......

BV:

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World
Trade Center and Building Demolitions
Zdenfk P. Bažant, F.ASCE; and Mathieu Verdure
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf


BL:

Bazant & Le
Closure to "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions"
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25 WTC Discussions Replies.pdf


.....

A good discussion of BV and BL is possible in view of the study presented in the OP, for there is much to say.

Unfortunately, I cannot do that here because most every poster who is defending BV has shown they have no capacity to distinguish between the argument in BZ and BV (only Dave has shown he may understand the difference). Consider the last post by Myriad. If that makes sense to you, I'm speechless.

I didn't realize that such a misunderstanding is so widespread among people who post here regularly. The barrier created by those who imagine that the BV argument is just a continuation of the BZ argument appears way too high to overcome, though discovering this barrier has been useful for me and, I hope, for you too.

If there are a few of you who can actually distinguish between the two arguments, please let me know and I can show you how BV and BL are proven wrong by the study.

Of not, the few readers that do understand the difference in the two arguments must be just as amazed as I am. Your comments can tell them much more about your own level of understanding than it does about the study.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Just to verify, do you really believe the following comments are true?

R Mackey: "Personally, I like how he seems to think Bazant and Le (2002) is supposed to be an accurate description of the collapse rather than a limiting case, or that he thinks that plus Bazant and Verdure (2006) cover the entire scope of the literature."

You mean Bazant and Zhao.

Myriad: "Bazant's model is a limiting case representing the most favorable assumptions for collapse arrest."

Different papers, different arguments. That was pointed out a few times but he still seems to believe it is true.

David James: "It was written within a few days doesn't represent a full analysis, Why not critique the NIST report?"

Wrong paper. These are from 2007-2008 and still believed to this day.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I asked: R Mackey seems to be saying he doesn't mean this to apply to WTC1 literally.

What do you think?

To which Dave answered:
"That's correct. As everyone keeps pointing out ad nauseam, Bazant is considering the limiting hypothetical case in which the structure is best able to resist collapse, and finding that it cannot."


That is the center of our disagreement. He actually does believe this literally, that crush down happens before crush up. This is pretty clear in the papers themselves (as long as you don't confuse their purpose and intent with BZ), but it became much clearer through long conversations with David Benson, who communicates with Dr Bazant.

You think I'm joking? I wish I was.


As stated in the (correct) papers in question, BV equs 12 and 17 are meant to be taken quite literally according to the author himself, as long as 4 simplifying assumptions are satisfied. Dr Bazant truly believes his 1-D model can be used to to measure the actual trajectory of the crush front for WTC1 and that the 4 simplifying assumptions apply to WTC1, including a slight lean.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

One of the few readers that understands what I am saying may ask: Major_Tom, why do you bother trying to explain something that most of these guys will never understand?

Now that is a good question. People from other forums are following this discussion, people who have shown the capacity to follow the argument. This discussion may help them clarify what the most common misconceptions are within the Bazant papers. By seeing common mistakes repeated, people can get a better sense of where the "debate" stands at present.

I was wrong about Dave, but all else remains true.

 

[Major_Tom]

TO which I received comments like:

You are a 'ing liar.

Seeing as how there is no paper by Bazant and Le that is relevant here, and you've ignored requests to clarify what you mean, I think you should cool it a bit.

Do you mean Bazant, Le, Greening, and Benson (2008), sometimes known as BLGB? Or are you even more confused than we thought?

He still seemed to have no clue BL even exists.

It's pretty much the same thing we've been saying in this thread for awhile now. Major_Tom needs to act dumb so he can pretend that his latest appeal to perfection is still somehow relevant.

Surreal.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5922853&postcount=3

Dumb . You wonder why people here just laugh at you? This is one of the reasons. You're worried about "the thread progressing". You need to be worried about your basic reading comprehension as you display zero aptitude in this skill.

Newton's Bit, truly disgusting.

This thread is an interesting read.

It seems to place Myriad, Newton's Bit, R Mackey and Dave Rogers as the the people most responsible for extending this lie for so long.

Will they ever clean up their mess? No. Back to circling the wagons of illusion.

 

[Major_Tom]

Fast forward to January 6, 2011, "applicability" thread:

Reasonable request. Here's my opinions (unchanged by any amateur FEA work):

1. Correct. Understanding that BZ is limited to one simple question, namely whether collapse will progress or stop, and with the understanding that if it is to stop at all it must be stopped after the first floor fails. There is no hope of a gradual arrest by reason of induction.

2. This is also correct. I may have occasionally read too fast and mixed up "BZ" and "BV" in the past. To be clear, the Bazant and Verdure (2007) paper is a different subject, taking the earlier model to a logical conclusion that brings it farther away from the actual WTC mechanics. "BZ" is a limiting case of progressive collapse initiation; "BV" is not a limiting case on timing or style of that collapse, but instead is an estimate of how that model would perform with respect to timing.

3. I disagree slightly -- "BV" is still partially relevant to the actual WTC collapses in terms of providing an estimate of the first stage of collapse, by which I mean the collapse of all materials outside the inner core. The model, particularly the "crush down" part, is not a perfect fit to that stage of WTC collapse, but it's sort of close and matches the observed timing to an acceptable degree. The real WTC, of course, has a second stage where the core remnant collapses, taking much longer and totally unpredicted (and unpredictable) through such a simplified approach.

Still, as has been noted for years, study of the collapse after initiation is pretty much academic. Once the collapse starts there is no reason at all for it to stop. NIST was fully justiified, in my opinion, going no farther than to recreate the conditions for instability and collapse initiation, even had there not been the BZ result to guide them.

Statement 3 is untrue.

Statement 2 is untrue. Occasionally? Not a "perfect fit"? What a joke!

Will he ever take responsibility for helping create and propagate the fictional interpretation of BZ and BV?

Look at how many little sheep follow the big sheep.

Myriad tries to rekindle the same lie today in the other thread.

Deja vous.

No responsibility, no shame.