OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[ozeco41]

Ozeco, how can you explain how no other regular JREF poster can see the difference between the extreme single collision of BZ and a collapse propagation model for real buildings in BV, BL and BLGB.

Like I said, pretty spooky, no?...

I have made my position clear several times Major_Tom:
-----yes I find the group dynamics interesting but that is not an appropriate subject for discussion here; AND
-----I have no intention of joining in direct personal criticism of other members. Two reasons. First it is discourtesy AND second it is one thing guaranteed to get them digging in the trenches of resistance to what you have to say.

Review your objectives. What are you trying to achieve? Why on JREF? Are you seeking discussion leading to agreement?

If you don't want your concepts discussed keep personalising the commentary.

 

[femr2]

This "study" and his visual timeline analysis are just another way to "Just ask questions" with a veneer of technobabble to try and fool people into thinking he knows what he's talking about.

Bolding mine (grammar corrected)

Pot, kettle.

Whilst I don't think it has helped discussion at this location, there are numerous posts which state the scope and reasons that MT included the statement, which you've clearly not *got*, and simply thrown stones in your own glass house by constructing a post based entirely upon your own misinterpretation.

 

[femr2]

Are you seeking discussion leading to agreement?

I would imagine that's pretty high on the list.

I find it pretty bizarre how many folk *attack* the ROOSD study.

With more, er, rational members there's no reason why the initial study couldn't have been rounded-off a little, the actual math implemented, etc etc.

I'm inclined to surmise that many members have zero interest in anything except *arguing* with anyone they self-brand as *twoofers*, which is pretty pathetic, and in a public forum results in a permanent reflection of members, er, qualities...till the end of time

Anyway, yes, general agreement that ROOSD is a pretty sensible route to refining and parameterising the primary mechanisms of destruction.

Acceptance of the scope and applicability of Bazant et al (which is the primary *tome* for all response to questions about descent progression),,,ie that is shouldn't be used at all except to agree that there was enough energy available (imo)...that ol' it proves it could, but does it prove it did kind of thing.


However, a main purpose AFAIK...


Get RID of all the crap arguments involving wild theories of floor-by-floor nuke-a-booms, providing both *sides* (debunker/AE911T/whatever) with an acceptable middle-ground.


One side continually citing Bazant, whilst the other points to missing jolts and 12 features of CD...blah. Waste of time.


Doubt there will be much progress here. Most of the folk are too blinkered.

 

[Dragon37]

Well you shouldn't really be critiquing something you've openly stated you haven't read.

The only thing I have said is that he has wasted his time. I don't have the time to go through 11 pages of a self professed best theory ever and contest anything about it because I would simply get the typical response of "you're an idiot", etc or a handwave away.

Your other verbage is (and I do hate the phrase) a classic *appeal to authority*, simply implying that you wouldn't know an apple from an orange unless someone who you've been told to trust says so. Mindless. Knock yourself out. Great stuff.

Sorry you are incorrect on both counts. I am not appealing to authority here at all because I am not trying to get anyone to believe a theory or professing to be an authority. As well I most certainly do know how to think for myself but requesting that MT publish his work before I read it simply saves me having wade through the inevitable structural errors in the work such as restating arguments and other such things. It will also assure that I have a good set of data to work from or reference. I have in fact had differences of opinion with professionals before and paid the price for such independent thought.

I think it would do you good to read, especially your use of 'It will remain a conspiracy theory'. That's funny.

You took that phrase out of context. I wasn't saying it was a conspiracy theory just that people might look at MT's position and assume that it is. I don't know if his theory is good or not. All I have said is that I desire his him to publish it first so that I can get the tightest possible presentation and with a set of data and a format that is straightforward and not convoluted. If he publishes too he may be more open to honest criticism or questions instead of taking and emotional stance as much of this should have been weeded out in the process of publishing and post publication.

As an aside, I would also have to honestly ask why I should even care about collapse models? For me in my line of work in and in many of my personal interests with plane crashes and such the fact that something went wrong is never as important as why it went wrong. Why should I spend my time reading about collapse? The buildings collapsed and studying how they fell certainly doesn't explain very much of that day to me. Everything up to collapse, imho, is what is important. Am I in error with this opinion? If so explain ... without insults please.

 

[femr2]

All I have said is that I desire his him to publish it first so that I can get the tightest possible presentation and with a set of data and a format that is straightforward and not convoluted.

That's okay on one level, but it's not a long study. It's pretty simple. ROOSD...Runaway Open Office Space Destruction. Gravity driven destruction of the flooring outside the core. Separation of that mechanism from core destruction and upper *block*. Perimeter peeling, ... It's in the OP.

Everything up to collapse, imho, is what is important. Am I in error with this opinion? If so explain ... without insults please.

A primary intention of the study is IMO to end arguments about progression, and result in focus of discussion upon initiation, yes.

 

[Dragon37]

That's okay on one level, but it's not a long study. It's pretty simple. ROOSD...Runaway Open Office Space Destruction. Gravity driven destruction of the flooring outside the core. Separation of that mechanism from core destruction and upper *block*. Perimeter peeling, ... It's in the OP.

Yes it is not a long study but if it raises good points and improves upon current knowledge why not publish? Should the goal not be broader understanding instead of simply restricting debate to obscure-ish online sources?

A primary intention of the study is IMO to end arguments about progression, and result in focus of discussion upon initiation, yes.

That would be good but adding to the collapse models out there seem a bit of a circuitous means of doing it

 

[femr2]

That would be good but adding to the collapse models out there seem a bit of a circuitous means of doing it

Well, that's the problem really.

What collapse models ?

There's Bazant and co, but it's limiting case energetics only, so whilst it clarifies *there's enough energy for propogation* it's not much cop for ending any discussion about descent features.observables.

What other collapse models are there for WTC1 & WTC2 ?

There's a few 1D step-wise rigid block accretion models such as those of Dr G. (and a couple from me ) but they are also of very limited use in explaining observable behaviour (which there;s still *arguments* kicking around about)

Others ? (May well have wiped a couple from memory)

 

[ozeco41]

Yes it is not a long study but if it raises good points and improves upon current knowledge why not publish? Should the goal not be broader understanding instead of simply restricting debate to obscure-ish online sources?...

Not all of us are motivated by the altruistic "improves upon current knowledge why not publish?" I have a lower level target which is equally valid IMHO.

Starting late 2007/early 2008 I contributed several explanations of "global collapse" to the now defunct Richard Dawkins Net forum. They were posted in the one thread there which was dedicated to WTC collapse.

My target was the mostly the lay persons audience of members. "Lay" in engineering and mostly "lay" in physics. The scientists on the forum tended to be biological science oriented for obvious reasons.

So I was not writing with the discipline nor style suited to professional publication. My objective was clarity of explanation for the lay audience which, certainly in those early days, included a number of genuine sceptics. Sceptics probably outnumbered committed conspiracy theorists in those earlier years.

I rewrote my explanation "off the top of my head" a few months back for the 9/11 thread at rationalskepticism forum. That was a new forum which was established to be a home to those members of Dawkins forum who were dispossessed when the patron closed the Dawkins forum. That recent post is qualitative descriptive and has several holes which more discerning readers would spot. But, given those disclaimers, it is here:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/c...-obligatory-9-11-thread-t515-680.html#p135852

 

[Dragon37]

Well, that's the problem really.

What collapse models ?

There's Bazant and co, but it's limiting case energetics only, so whilst it clarifies *there's enough energy for propogation* it's not much cop for ending any discussion about descent features.observables.

What other collapse models are there for WTC1 & WTC2 ?

There's a few 1D step-wise rigid block accretion models such as those of Dr G. (and a couple from me ) but they are also of very limited use in explaining observable behaviour (which there;s still *arguments* kicking around about)

Others ? (May well have wiped a couple from memory)

Well, from my opinion only, collapse models don't really seem important in the understanding of that day. IMO the events up to initiation offer the best contribution to making safer buildings ... if that is the ultimate intent of the models. The understanding the events leading to initiation should provide all the information needed to make decision on recommendations to making safer building ... like answering the questions that lead to a plane crash. Yes you can, in plane crashes find evidence to answer those questions but there is only so far you can get with that data. Similarly, I am uncertain to this day what collapse models (post initiation that is) of the three buildings have to contribute. They are like those pieces of wreckage that confirm a plane crashed but have no bearing on explaining why that plane crashed.

Perhaps if you and other could explain to me why you personally think it is important I might actually take more interest in such models. The disconnect here, for me, is I don't see why Bazant or MT's models are anything but special interest points and not germane to the understanding of why the towers (and 7 WTC) came down.

 

[Dragon37]

Not all of us are motivated by the altruistic "improves upon current knowledge why not publish?" I have a lower level target which is equally valid IMHO.

Starting late 2007/early 2008 I contributed several explanations of "global collapse" to the now defunct Richard Dawkins Net forum. They were posted in the one thread there which was dedicated to WTC collapse.

My target was the mostly the lay persons audience of members. "Lay" in engineering and mostly "lay" in physics. The scientists on the forum tended to be biological science oriented for obvious reasons.

So I was not writing with the discipline nor style suited to professional publication. My objective was clarity of explanation for the lay audience which, certainly in those early days, included a number of genuine sceptics. Sceptics probably outnumbered committed conspiracy theorists in those earlier years.

I rewrote my explanation "off the top of my head" a few months back for the 9/11 thread at rationalskepticism forum. That was a new forum which was established to be a home to those members of Dawkins forum who were dispossessed when the patron closed the Dawkins forum. That recent post is qualitative descriptive and has several holes which more discerning readers would spot. But, given those disclaimers, it is here:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/c...-obligatory-9-11-thread-t515-680.html#p135852

Well, your goal is still to furthering understanding. I just think if people want to be heard the best voice is publishing in some form. Many people are oblivious to public forums.

I personally don't care if a paper is focused to the lay person, in fact I welcome it. I just think the best way for people to take note is if it is published in some way shape or form. Take the Jones paper for example, flawed or not it got attention to a much wider audience than if they had just put it on something like AE911truth or something like that.

IMO I say if MT and other feel he has something that is worthy of a wider audience then they should do what they can to get it to that audience. Otherwise it was an awful lot of work to just preach to the converted on his forum or the hostile audience here where it is likely to dwell further in obscurity.

There are plenty of science people that have made an effort to bring science to the layperson and I have to say that does the most benefit to everyone. I also don't think it is altruistic it is fundamental to having an open society and for science to have the money and approval to go ahead. If you show what science can do for the public you have much broader opportunities.

IMHO

 

[ozeco41]

Well, your goal is still to furthering understanding. I just think if people want to be heard the best voice is publishing in some form. Many people are oblivious to public forums.

I personally don't care if a paper is focused to the lay person, in fact I welcome it. I just think the best way for people to take note is if it is published in some way shape or form. Take the Jones paper for example, flawed or not it got attention to a much wider audience than if they had just put it on something like AE911truth or something like that.

IMO I say if MT and other feel he has something that is worthy of a wider audience then they should do what they can to get it to that audience. Otherwise it was an awful lot of work to just preach to the converted on his forum or the hostile audience here where it is likely to dwell further in obscurity.

There are plenty of science people that have made an effort to bring science to the layperson and I have to say that does the most benefit to everyone. I also don't think it is altruistic it is fundamental to having an open society and for science to have the money and approval to go ahead. If you show what science can do for the public you have much broader opportunities.

IMHO

I think we are in broad agreement. You leave open and advocate the formal publication track. I don't see that track as viable for my own efforts. The two views can be complementary.

 

[ozeco41]

...I find it pretty bizarre how many folk *attack* the ROOSD study...

They react to the author not the material. Within the polarised climate of current 'debate' if an acknowledged 'truther' was to claim that the cloudless sky is blue there would be 'debunkers' lining up to ask what his qualifications were and when he intended to publish a peer reviewed paper. Both those forms of 'attack the witness' remind me of the barristers motto 'If you have no case attack the witness' and the corollary 'if they attack the witness they have no case'. And both of them deployed IMNSHO far too often as evasions by persons who probably cannot contribute to the technical topic under debate.

...However, a main purpose AFAIK...


Get RID of all the crap arguments involving wild theories of floor-by-floor nuke-a-booms, providing both *sides* (debunker/AE911T/whatever) with an .


One side continually citing Bazant, whilst the other points to missing jolts and 12 features of CD...blah. Waste of time.


Doubt there will be much progress here. Most of the folk are too blinkered.

I agree with you on 'waste of time'. However I do not agree with an 'acceptable middle-ground'. I see the situation as being akin with creationism v evolution. There is no case for creationism and those pushing the equal exposure arguments are looking for unwarranted credibity of being seen in a debate which they cannot even join let alone win.

And I have yet to see a credible MIHOP hypothesis. As I have said several times in recent weeks the crunch points are not necessarily in the technical domain, rather the domains of logistics and security. That said the technical discussions have merit in their own right even if they are dead ends. So at least one level more credible than creationism.

 

[femr2]

And I have yet to see a credible MIHOP hypothesis.

For what it's worth, are you aware of Dr G's ammonium perchlorate outline scenario ?

 

[ozeco41]

For what it's worth, are you aware of Dr G's ammonium perchlorate outline scenario ?

Yes - but only as an outline - following on from discussion of possible roles of ammonium perchlorate in sustaining heat in the rubble piles.

From memory it would have required well in advance preparation. Is it posted on 911forum??

 

[femr2]

Yes - but only as an outline - following on from discussion of possible roles of ammonium perchlorate in sustaining heat in the rubble piles.

From memory it would have required well in advance preparation. Is it posted on 911forum??

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/the-ammonium-perchlorate-theory-t87.html

 

[ozeco41]

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/the-ammonium-perchlorate-theory-t87.html

Thanks. I will read it over the next day or so.

 

[AZCat]

As I have said several times in recent weeks the crunch points are not necessarily in the technical domain, rather the domains of logistics and security. That said the technical discussions have merit in their own right even if they are dead ends.

I tend to agree with your first point, which is why I find it interesting that most of the discussion on the JREF and elsewhere focuses on the technical domain.

There were several discussions I followed in industry rags back in the years NIST was developing the NCSTARs ('02-'06, IIRC). Mostly fire protection/modeling stuff, but I think they were valuable at the time because they fed into the recommendations NIST made to the various code and standards organizations (some of which have been or are being implemented). Anymore though, I struggle to see the purpose in discussions like this one because I don't see how the conclusions (if any are reached) will change anything, especially if the participants aren't interested in communicating the conclusions and their supporting material to relevant organizations.

 

[Carll68]

Perspective

Moved to other thread "Bazant to Real World"

 

[ozeco41]

I tend to agree with your first point, which is why I find it interesting that most of the discussion on the JREF and elsewhere focuses on the technical domain.

There were several discussions I followed in industry rags back in the years NIST was developing the NCSTARs ('02-'06, IIRC). Mostly fire protection/modeling stuff, but I think they were valuable at the time because they fed into the recommendations NIST made to the various code and standards organizations (some of which have been or are being implemented). Anymore though, I struggle to see the purpose in discussions like this one because I don't see how the conclusions (if any are reached) will change anything, especially if the participants aren't interested in communicating the conclusions and their supporting material to relevant organizations.

Context and purpose.

Why the focus on technical? Especially when the real conspiracy stuff about 9/11 must be in the "social" domain. "Conspiracy" cannot be in "technical"

But the technical is easier to grab hold of. Easier (earlier days) for genuine sceptics and a few "conspiracy theorists" to frame and ask technical questions. Easier for others to respond to. So that seems to have set the pattern. Likewise easier to conclusively rebut technical matters which are simply wrong.

Then the primary objective is semi public discussion on the Internet and the multiple motives that drive people to join such discussions. So getting the truth to those in power is secondary to most who come here. 'Debunkers' who need to get info to authorities are usually well placed to pass such information - if in fact there is anything needing passing. Bottom line if all the truther stuff brought here is debunked what is the message to the authorities? "We had some clowns put some silly questions on this Internet forum and we answered them all" "Ho hum, so what?" says Authority - bearing in mind that if your name is "N Ist" or "F Ema" you have had thousands of letters on the same silly stuff.

So we only see the minor technical stuff here. Three quarters of the NIST outcomes are building and fire code recommendations. What collapsed the WTC buildings is clear - impact damage, resulting unfought fires. So what building, fire and escape codes of practice need what modifications for the next time?

So the purpose of these discussions is mainly having these discussions. And that has reduced to the 'enjoyment' of the vicarious fun of heaping ridicule on those you disagree with. Plus a bit of relatively rare these days technical discussion.

 

[ozeco41]

Yes - but only as an outline - following on from discussion of possible roles of ammonium perchlorate in sustaining heat in the rubble piles.

From memory it would have required well in advance preparation. Is it posted on 911forum??

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/the-ammonium-perchlorate-theory-t87.html

An interesting "tongue in cheek" suggestion. Which, despite the light heartedness, manages to present a part way credible scenario.

Interesting also that one respondent comments as follows:

You'll only need from fl 92 to 98 for WTC 1. By starting an overwhelming avalanche within the chute between the core and perimeter, it may be quite possible to demolish the entire building by working from floors 92 to 98. Most all the fires were located in this region.

...which begs the question of how would the perpetrators of this pre preparation plan - executed somewhere between 1995-2001 and therefore planned no later than 1995 - how would they know where the fires of 9/11 2001 would be?

Still it is as close to a full plan for MIHOP as I have seen so far. It sets me a new benchmark.