Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

[Major_Tom]

femr,



You're claiming that the upper block, plowing its way thru the lower structure, created a front end that matched perfectly the inside dimensions of the peripheral wall???



And magically sheared all the internal floors perfectly from outer columns ??



And left a massively unstable external wall standing in place???



And it wasn't until the crush front had long since passed by, with the high pressure front IN ADVANCE of it, that the outer walls suddenly threw themselves in all direction??



Or perhaps it was late-firing nanothermite that threw the external columns hundreds of feet …?

THAT's your "ROOSD theory" …?

.

No geometrical upper block. The freaking walls fall off.

Is TFK the last person here to not understand the ROOSD concept?

Is there any poster slower than TFK? Anyone not getting this yet?

 

[tfk]

No Tom. R. O. O. S. D.

Runaway. Open Office Space. Destruction.

OOS... The flooring external to the core region.

The weakest link in the chain.

Call it the *pancake theory* if you are struggling so badly.


No Tom. Multiple regional behaviours. SW Crush front was highlighted.


In places, absolutely, with a trailing fragmented upper-block thrown in the pot.


No Tom. Multiple crush fronts. Multiple trailing masses, including the hat truss and wotnot. Peeling perimeter sections hinged much lower on the facade.

I've not used this before...



Tom, stop. You are digging a hole. Don't do it to yourself.

You are illustrating vividly how very little you know of the actual descent behaviour.

Have a nice day.

"... blah, blah, blah ..."

In other words, you have no evidence whatsoever that those ejecta are the crush front and not just pressure pulses.

And so the best you can do is one assertion after another.

Got it. You could have simply said so at the beginning & saved us both a bunch of typing.



tk

 

[alienentity]

No geometrical upper block. The freaking walls fall off.

Is TFK the last person here to not understand the ROOSD concept?

Is there any poster slower than TFK? Anyone not getting this yet?

The same isn't true of WTC 2. The upper block is intact, rotates and falls into the dust cloud.

So i can't say the mechanisms were exactly the same, I wouldn't even expect it.

 

[ProBonoShill]

You folks really are outdoing yourselves today. A stream of utter nonsense.

The crush front traversal rate used by BLGB is in the damn quote... 47.34m/s.

You may be able to tell that 47.34m/s != 28m/s.



Have a nice day.

*Sigh

Here let me simplify it further for you:

Since the velocity of the crushing front near the end of North Tower crush-down is, according to the solution of Eq.(2), z =47.34m/s (106mph), the velocity of escaping air near the end of crush-down is...

does not equal:

as the primary North Tower crush front traversed at a fairly constant ~28m/s.

The fact that you actually believe:

The value can be checked and measured by anyone who wants to verify it. Simply trace the SW crush front ejecta from video and transform the position/time data into velocity/time.

is synonymous with BLGB's crush-down differential equation of motion, specifically near the end of crush-down is ...... ROF laughable.

Have a nice day!

 

[tfk]

No geometrical upper block. The freaking walls fall off.

Is TFK the last person here to not understand the ROOSD concept?

Is there any poster slower than TFK? Anyone not getting this yet?

In other words, you also have nothing to offer in response to the questions that I asked.

"... the last person here ..."??

Does Major Tom have any sort of argument to offer that involves steel, bolts, beams, columns or such? Or is he reduced to sad, plaintive cries for support from a bunch of people who have made it clear that they think he's a bungling fool?

Tell me, MT. How many people do you think you've convinced that your ROOSD is the best explanation for the collapse of the towers?

How many people do you think you've convinced that your ROOSD theory negates, invalidates, disproves NIST's analysis.

I am really curious what you think.
___

How do you explain the ability to pull free from a 14" thin, 200' wide, 80' tall, unsupported wall of bolted together steel columns about 180 bolts with a combined load carrying capacity of around (20,000 x 120 + 60 x 7500 =) almost 3 million pounds? With nary a hint of motion in that enormously tall, wide unsupported wall?

Remember, a subset of those very same bolts pulled those very same columns inward about 5 feet without breaking earlier. And that is when they were hot and weak. Now they are cold & strong, and yet suffer a DUCTILE fracture without any indication of deflecting the outer wall in the process.

I've seen video of similar large structures fail before. The fluctuations, the dynamics are amazing. I suspect that, if you modeled one of those walls, got rid of most of the lateral support & pulled say 3 adjacent trusses to failure within say 50 - 100 msec, the entire wall would oscillate like a tympani.

And yet you claim that the collapse wave has stripped all the trusses free (30 trusses on a side?) with no external indication of any inward load.

Amazing...

BTW, nothing I said requires a "geometrical upper block".

It doesn't even require a compacted mass of debris. Even tho there is guaranteed to be one.

How do you explain thousands of tons of material being ejected out of the building ...

... but none of it gets hung up on other debris at the periphery of the rubble heap?

Any ideas?
Any comments?

Or are you going to turn again to your legion of JREF supporters ...?

LoL.

 

[ozeco41]

In other words, you also have nothing to offer in response to the questions that I asked.

"... the last person here ..."??

Does Major Tom have any sort of argument to offer that involves steel, bolts, beams, columns or such? Or is he reduced to sad, plaintive cries for support from a bunch of people who have made it clear that they think he's a bungling fool?

Tell me, MT. How many people do you think you've convinced that your ROOSD is the best explanation for the collapse of the towers?

How many people do you think you've convinced that your ROOSD theory negates, invalidates, disproves NIST's analysis.

I am really curious what you think...

There is a time tfk when you have dug yourself into a hole and it is time to cut your losses.

I do not claim to comprehend the mindset of many posters here who have abuse of 'truthers' as their primary objective. Who will subordinate sound rational analysis of this matter of engineering forensic analysis to the need to insult those who hold differing views. So much so that, in this instance, you choose to deny well accepted explanations of WTC collapse events.

I have said on several previous occasions if Major_Tom or anyone labelled 'truther' was to claim 'the cloudless sky is blue' he/they would be swamped by a pack of 'debunkers' claiming that the assertion about blue sky was wrong. The symptoms of denial would include personal attacks about qualifications; criticism that the claim about blue sky was not published in a peer reviewed journal article. All manner of evasions simply to avoid the fact that the 'truther' happened to be right.

The ROOSD explanation is not unique. It happens to be the mainstream accepted explanation of the 'global collapse'. Sure MT has added some details which may not be mainstream but as sure as the cloudless sky is blue the broad outline of 'ROOSD' is how the twin towers collapsed.

And, even now at this late stage, you still want to continue with illogical claims. You ask "How many people do you think you've convinced that your ROOSD theory negates, invalidates, disproves NIST's analysis."

Well the test of MT or femr's claims is "Are they correct?" NOT "How many people..[have you convinced].."

And anyone who has been around WTC collapse discussion should know that the extent of NIST analysis of the 'global collapse' was "global collapse was inevitable".

As I said in my earlier post:

...'ROOSD' is Major_Tom's title for the process but - begging a few details in MT's version it is the same old explanation that a few of us have been using for years. Me since late 2007 - early 2008. So if you have to ridicule MT's version (other than his title for it) there are a few of us you need to push out of the way.

I am well aware of the potential for Major_Tom, femr2 et al's explanations to lead towards CD. I have confronted each of the group - four of them - individually on the potential full scope of discussion. The potential for discussion to go towards MIHOP does not excuse invalid attacks on technical matters where they happen to be right. Otherwise we would all be obliged to denounce 'the cloudless sky is blue' as 'truther' dishonesty.

I am not prepared to go that far.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Major Tom, can we stop playing hide n seek and get directly to the nonsense, namely these quotes by you:




http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post11210.html#p11210

A demolition which utilizes weaker seams within the building's structure would undergo just about the same collapse progression as one that started by natural failures. The difference is in how the collapse initiated, not how it progressed. Expected concrete comminution would be about the same in both cases.

Many people believe that Dr Bazant has "proven" that both collapse initiation and collapse progression for WTC1 and 2 were natural. The reality is that Dr Bazant only stated his opinion of what he thinks happened during collapse initiation without any proof. His "proof" is the NIST report on the WTC1, 2 collapse initiation scenarios and the famous sagging floors. There is no other "proof".

The most important places to look for signs of controlled demolition are probably:

1) The collapse initiation mechanism of WTC 1 and 2

2) Anything concerning the collapse of WTC 7, including:

a) Fall time
b) Symmetry of collapse
c) Practically instantaneous collective column failure during collapse initiation, an extremely rapid lateral failure progression wave.
d) A small, compact, organized hill of rubble remaining after the fall of WTC 7.
e) The uncanny resemblance of the collapse to a controlled demolition.
f) Accidental hastily-released eulogy by the BBC of the collapse of WTC 7

This is not true since a demolition which exploits weaker natural seams within the building's design would exhibit similar collapse propagation characteristics.

 

[ozeco41]

Major Tom, can we stop playing hide n seek and get directly to the nonsense, namely these quotes by you:...

Well out of that lot surely this one is not controversial??

The most important places to look for signs of controlled demolition are probably:

1) The collapse initiation mechanism of WTC 1 and 2

That claim must be true.

I cannot see how any demolition scenario could avoid the collapse initiation phase.

 

[alienentity]

The most important places to look for signs of controlled demolition are probably:

1) The collapse initiation mechanism of WTC 1 and 2

2) Anything concerning the collapse of WTC 7, including:

a) Fall time
b) Symmetry of collapse
c) Practically instantaneous collective column failure during collapse initiation, an extremely rapid lateral failure progression wave.
d) A small, compact, organized hill of rubble remaining after the fall of WTC 7.
e) The uncanny resemblance of the collapse to a controlled demolition.
f) Accidental hastily-released eulogy by the BBC of the collapse of WTC 7

Aww, did he really write that? That's sad, frankly. So all this agonizing over the amount of tilt at the start of collapse etc... is an attempt to prove CD?
Groan...

 

[alienentity]

<lecture in defense of truther tactics snipped>

And, even now at this late stage, you still want to continue with illogical claims. You ask "How many people do you think you've convinced that your ROOSD theory negates, invalidates, disproves NIST's analysis."

ozeco, TFK has given, many times critical analysis to the subject, but there is a point where the evasive, repetitive and haughty manner of these guys becomes intolerable to some. Surely you fail to appreciate that.

They spend a great deal of energy dissing either NIST or Bazant et al. or both, instead of simply putting their own analysis forward as a viable alternative to other respected analysis. In other words, they show disdain and contempt for those very sources of knowledge, which is highly offensive.

If they get verbally pistol-whipped, it's their own fault. You surprise me.

Did it ever occur to you that the debate might not be so polarized if truthers weren't primarily occupied with crapping on every piece of information they don't agree with?

ETA the day I start feeling guilty about the way truthers are treated here is the day I give up trying to make a difference in this world. Just give up and let the trolls have it. Let's just throw out logic and reason, put the NIST reports and the Bazant papers in the wastebin, and embrace Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood. And appoint Femr2 and Major_Tom to lead a new investigation to catch and prosecute the perpetrators of this great conspiracy against the common man.
Yeah, that would be a lovely day, wouldn't it? In Hell.

 

[femr2]

Here let me simplify it further for you:

Don't do it to yourself.

Since the velocity of the crushing front near the end of North Tower crush-down is, according to the solution of Eq.(2), z =47.34m/s (106mph), the velocity of escaping air near the end of crush-down is...

does not equal:

as the primary North Tower crush front traversed at a fairly constant ~28m/s.

You are absolutely right.

The calculated motion profile of the crush front is not the same as the actual motion profile.

You are highlighting a behavioural difference between the model and the real world.

The fact that you actually believe:

The value can be checked and measured by anyone who wants to verify it. Simply trace the SW crush front ejecta from video and transform the position/time data into velocity/time.

is synonymous with BLGB's crush-down differential equation of motion, specifically near the end of crush-down is ...... ROF laughable.

ROFL. Do it ! I'm talking about actual motion in real video. Measure it yourself. It's not a belief, it's confirmable measurement.

And yes, it highlights a behavioural problem with the Bazant et al model(s), though you should take note of...

What was DBB's terminal velocity figure ?

About 28.8 m/s for the advance of the crushing front (material speed is necessarily less) but already at 3.76+ seconds the crushing front is advancing at 28.5 m/s.

Second B of BLGB.

Have a nice day!

You too.

 

[femr2]

ozeco, TFK has given, many times critical analysis to the subject

Most of tom's critical analysis is nonsense. Debunking my theory of a theory of apple freefall (or some such nonsense) ring any bells ?

there is a point where the evasive, repetitive and haughty manner

You are particularly guilty of such. You have failed to address my recent responses to you.

I suggest you do. I'll remind you following your next post if you forget.

They spend a great deal of energy dissing either NIST or Bazant et al. or both

Nonsense. Highlighting issues or errors is not 'dissing'.

instead of simply putting their own analysis forward as a viable alternative to other respected analysis.

Nonsense. Take my 28m/s value. I've provided you with the data, and explained how to replicate the *analysis* yourself. What more would you want ?

In other words, they show disdain and contempt for those very sources of knowledge, which is highly offensive.

Nonsense. Looks like you are suffering from a bit of hero worship. You have clearly lost objectivity.

If they get verbally pistol-whipped, it's their own fault. You surprise me.

ROFL.

primarily occupied with crapping on every piece of information they don't agree with?

Wrong is wrong.

ETA the day I start feeling guilty about the way truthers are treated here is the day I give up trying to make a difference in this world. Just give up and let the trolls have it. Let's just throw out logic and reason, put the NIST reports and the Bazant papers in the wastebin, and embrace Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood. And appoint Femr2 and Major_Tom to lead a new investigation to catch and prosecute the perpetrators of this great conspiracy against the common man.
Yeah, that would be a lovely day, wouldn't it? In Hell.

The sky is blue.

Have a nice day.

 

[Major_Tom]

Well out of that lot surely this one is not controversial??

That claim must be true.

I cannot see how any demolition scenario could avoid the collapse initiation phase.

Exactly. It is also a logical consequence of the BZ argument.

SImply from the logic of BZ and the famous back of the envelope calculations, initiation is the most important place to look.

BZ cannot explain how the initiation happened, only that if the building is allowed to fall (by any means) for 12 ft, the Virgin Mary herself cannot save it.

This leaves initiation, according to the logic of BZ, as the last remaining mystery.

 

[Oystein]

...
This leaves initiation, according to the logic of BZ, as the last remaining mystery.

You are certainly aware that you misrepresent BZ here. Collapse initiation is not a "remaining mystery" "according to the logic of BZ".
BZ is simply not concerned at all with collapse initiation. That's out of scope.

 

[newton3376]

Apparently Femr believes the highlighted portions below are equivalent to each other, maybe he's never heard of gravity and momentum:

Momentum is not a good topic to discuss with femr2...

We have seen that before...

 

[GlennB]

They spend a great deal of energy dissing either NIST or Bazant et al. or both, instead of simply putting their own analysis forward as a viable alternative to other respected analysis.

It's a tactic that's designed to find one flaw in the official line. If that's achieved then all CT bets are back on. Thermite, explosive charges, the works.

Where the tactic fails is that when asked "OK, so let's suppose the NISTian view of collapse initiation is flawed. What are you proposing to take its place?" then the silence is deafening. Or the shiftiness of the obfuscation and goalpost-moving is dizzying. So let's try it ...

femr2, Major_Tom (et al) - let's suppose that the NISTian view of collapse initiation is flawed. What are you proposing to take its place, for all 3 buildings?

 

[femr2]

The potential for discussion to go towards MIHOP does not excuse invalid attacks on technical matters where they happen to be right.

An important factor most seem unable to comprehend is that much of the detail and data I have released provides confirmable detail against many current *CD* theories.

It is no secret that I do not view reports such as those released by NIST as de-facto explanations of the events, however, as I have said on numerous occasions the intent is to clarify what actually happened, in detail.

Proposing a theory of what may have or could have is not good enough. What did happen is.

I find it particularly hilarious how many folk attacked the presentation of data for WTC1 and WTC7 showing traced motion far in advance of release, demanding to know how it proves CD, and seemingly unaware of the fact the presentation of that data alone *debunks* all manner of pre-existing CD *theories*.

I'd hazard a guess that between Major_Tom and myself, we've (actually) *debunked* many more *theories* than most of the offensive and fairly clueless posters kicking around here put together.

Study of the events will continue in more and more detail until what actually happened is detailed in full, regardless of objections from irrelevant third-parties.

 

[Major_Tom]

You are certainly aware that you misrepresent BZ here. Collapse initiation is not a "remaining mystery" "according to the logic of BZ".
BZ is simply not concerned at all with collapse initiation. That's out of scope.

Once collapse initiation allows the top of the building to fall through one story, BZ claims the building is toast.

It leaves the initiation unanswered. Initiation is the natural place to look for the difference between demo and natural collapse.

 

[femr2]

femr2, Major_Tom (et al) - let's suppose that the NISTian view of collapse initiation is flawed. What are you proposing to take its place, for all 3 buildings?

Detailed analysis of the actual behaviour and sequence of the actual events individually for all three buildings.

I have already presented much raw data for WTC 7 and WTC 1.

See my previous post.

 

[Major_Tom]

It's a tactic that's designed to find one flaw in the official line. If that's achieved then all CT bets are back on. Thermite, explosive charges, the works.

Where the tactic fails is that when asked "OK, so let's suppose the NISTian view of collapse initiation is flawed. What are you proposing to take its place?" then the silence is deafening. Or the shiftiness of the obfuscation and goalpost-moving is dizzying. So let's try it ...

femr2, Major_Tom (et al) - let's suppose that the NISTian view of collapse initiation is flawed. What are you proposing to take its place, for all 3 buildings?

Something real rather than imaginary. Detailed observation and measurements can be put together in a list. If your view of collapse initiation is contrary to the observables, it is just your imagination.

If your view of collapse initiation is consistent with observables, it is worth considering.

The NIST description is imaginary for the most part.