Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

[beachnut]

No, no, no Beachnut.

You've been talking about *my CD theory* for a good year now.

What CD theory ?

The one you have, the one you are too afraid to define, the one you can't defend with evidence. You have had it for years now, when will you come out and define it?

WTC Demolition - WTC1 Mechanical Floor Ejecta

You have the CD delusion. Maybe you have no clue that Demolition is the D in CD. You have theories on 911, you have conspiracy theories that the Towers did not fall due to impacts, fire and gravity.

WTC Demolition You call a terrorist act Demolition, instead of WTC destroyed by terrorists. Your CD theory is the government did it, or some other failed idea.

Do you support the theories or claims the WTC was destroyed by things other than impacts, fire and gravity? Another easy question I expect you will fail to answer and hide behind your new 911 truth "what CD theory" BS question.

Bazant thinks CD is dumb, I include your version of CD which you can't define and avoid. I don't blame you for hiding your claims on 911, they are moronic.

femr2 said - 30mph hot dust clouds which blow people off their feet and melt car tyres and burn paint from vehicles...

hot dust melts car tires. Now that is a delusion. Good for you!

How does the 28 m/s tracking of a dust cloud relate to Bazant's work?

 

[femr2]

Follow the, follow the crush front...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFZU3ClJkvY

 

[ozeco41]

First of all, I thank ozeco41 for responding to my posts....

My thanks also to you.

...Sorry to arrive late. You may find this hard to believe, but I have not been following your posts since 2008...

I did not mean that you should. Rather the broad understanding of 'global collapse' mechanisms was something which I thought had been around/posted/published/available for some years and that I had been active in one corner of the discussions.

...I don't think the highlighted phrase is terribly controversial. With respect to the applicability of Bažant et al's model(s), the important question would be their sensitivity to "not much later". Another question is the meaning of "not much"...

Recall that I am talking about three distinct parts of an overall collapse mechanism occurring in close physical proximity with physical linkages between them but with some sequence time gaps. Those three being OOS floor pancaking, outer tube peel off and core strip down. In that situation I can identify three scenarios. The first being that the mechanisms proceed in lock step - corresponding bits of collapse occurring at the same time for each of the three mechanisms. The second is where the time difference is such that the three processes are independent. It would presume that whichever process was leading in time had disconnected any physical links between the processes so that the trailing process occurs as if fully independent of the first. The third is the intermediate of that brief time when one process has happened but the following process is still being affected by whatever - still remaining physical links, vibrations or pressure waves.

now with that as the range of possible scenarios the expression "not much later" could mean either my second or third scenarios. When I posted "not much later" I had in mind not weeks, not hours, not minutes and possibly not even seconds. But sufficient to disconnect the trailing mechanism from interaction with the leading one. So the OOS floor pancaking leaves the outer tube standing unbraced to fall later due to instability. (Yes I am aware that this could be in conflict with some concurrent discussions in the thread.)

...Your highlighted statement puzzles me. Combining it with your following sentence, you appear to assume that even a small lag would prevent the Bažant model(s) from fitting the real world...

Yes. If the lag is sufficient to disconnect the two or all three mechanisms then Bazant et al would not apply. Bazant's model presumes one collapse. Three disconnected processes are not one collapse.

...It's fine with me if you don't want to talk about it, but your use of the word "other" would seem to mean you have not suggested applying Bažant et al's model(s) in the manner I suggested. Combined with your "why the Bazant model does not fit the real world", I conclude that you think I'm missing something obvious here.

I don't know what you think I'm missing. I'm not saying you haven't explained it; I'm saying that, if you did, I missed it or didn't understand it...

Nothing hidden - I just didn't want to distract from the main theme. By "other" I have suggested that the OOS collapse could be modelled using Bazant's methods is the failure strength of the floor joist to column connections was used rather than the presumed inclusion of columns which fail in buckling. That latter being where 'real world WTC collapse' departs from 'Bazant model as I understand it currently'

...Yes, Internet communication is a funny animal. That's why science and engineering communities use the Internet for informal discussions and for dissemination of results, but also have more formal processes in place for evaluating arguments that, in the opinion of their authors, deserve to be taken as the starting point for subsequent discussions...

Sure.

...The possibility you admit here should prevent you from dismissing the applicability of Bažant et al's model(s) out of hand.

Yes.

...ETA: Would it help for me to respond to your post #1447? You might have misinterpreted silence, possibly motivated by deference to your experience, as agreement.

...I did not interpret silence in any direction. No need to go back to that post at this stage. The thread is moving with some pace and filtering the items of interest is keeping me busy.

 

[ozeco41]

Follow the, follow the crush front...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFZU3ClJkvY

With the corner left standing??

 

[femr2]

The one you have

So for over a year now you are basing your entire viewpoint on me NOT stating a theory you think I must have ?

Classic.

I've repeatedly made my position clear, and it's no secret that I consider reports such as those from NIST to be far from conclusive.

Have a nice day.

 

[ProBonoShill]

I know stating too many decimal places is a henious crime but that doesn't stop his responses being vitriolic nonsense.


A functional (if you will) ROOSD model does not, as I'm sure you already know, exist. However, numerous pre-existing models have been modified and stripped down to include OOS floor slabs and their connections only.

Testing with a very simple asynchronous impact model resulted in...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/1/589522305.png[/qimg]
It's smearogram-style.
Red vertical lines are seconds.
Blue tint is velocity.
Green tint is mass.
CR = 0.9
Failure = 73,000,000 J

Whilst that is NOT an implementation of the ROOSD model as such, it does show that the linear rate progression can be replicated easily. (Take note ProBonoShill)

Take note of what?

Your smearogram invention that shows no inputs?

Math? Physics? Momentum? Got some?

 

[ProBonoShill]

ROFL. It's a video title beachnut. The subject matter. Loads of video's on my channel with the same video name prefix. All of these discussions are all fundamentally about the same topic. You post in them. Where is your CD theory beachnut ?

What is my CD theory beachnut ? You've been talking about it for a year. Out with it.

Have a nice day.

Awww look femr's playing hide n seek again, isn't that charming.

All-y all-y in come free.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qZclSQeyQ8&feature=related

Ask yourself this:

If the top section of the Tower tipped over because of localised failure at the floors covering the impact zone, WHAT caused the very obvious explosive ejection of debris FAR above the impact zone ?

Clear evidence of demolition

Demolition?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YdI1v1mWJQ&feature=related

Note the way the East (Left) hand side of the building fold in over the top of the inner region...

Exactly as per the desired behaviour of a standard controlled demolition.

Controlled demolition?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nhvhCAXf-0&feature=related

Several years of 'fire-proofing' would indeed be perfect cover for access to the central core.

The role of the central lift shaft C50 is also very significant I think, as it in the exact centre of each building, running from bedrock base to the roof. (One of only 3 shafts which traverse the entire building, the others being C6 and C7)

C50 was 'out of order' in the run-up to, and on 9/11.

Perfect cover? For who? For what?

 

[femr2]

With the corner left standing??

With the entire* East perimeter peeling BEGINNING just before the end of the clip...

As I said I'll put some AV resources together. Keeping track of that bit of perimeter alone is 100% conclusive on perimeter peeling FAR behind the crush front.

 

[carlitos]

Belated thanks to those who clarified my question on the limiting case.

I have to be honest. As a non-engineer, I've never seen a "smearogram." I do charts (well, I mostly hire smart people to do charts) for business. I can't think of any reason to lay an animated chart over a video, or to measure so many variables in one chart that the result would be a 'smearogram' with both horizontal and vertical lines and many sets of plotlines. The NIST charts, whatever flaws they may have, seem to include error bands, something notably absent from the charts from these guys. I think it might have been myriad who mentioned that Einstein made do without animation, but really. The visuals that MT, femr2, and (especially) achimspok post just can't prove anything. No one could understand these things.

 

[Major_Tom]

Yes, Ozeco, the corner temporarily remains standing.

Watch how the perimeter sheet from the WTC2 east face stretches outward from the footprint of the building:

It is painfully obvious the perimeter was stripped from the inside and fell outwards.

The blue oval shows the same pieces that you can see in the gif by femr a few posts ago. They are at the top of the sheet.


This information also debunks some of the AE911T claims of how these perimeter pieces were "blown" out that far. We can see the mechanism in the gif by femr and the sheet locations in the rubble.

 

[ozeco41]

... (Quoting A G Vlassis 2009) "It can be concluded that in the event of a failure and subsequent impact of a single floor plate onto the floor plate below , the lower impacted system is highly unlikely to possess sufficient dynamic load carrying capacity to resist the imposed dynamic loads and prevent progressive collapse. .... This is particularly true when the falling floor completely disintegrates and falls as debris without retaining any residual strength or spanning capability.."

Am I the only one posting here who thought that was obvious?

i.e. One floor falling with dynamic impact is "highly unlikely to possess sufficient dynamic load carrying capacity"

And several floors, possibly joined with a more or less complete structure, was dead set certain to present an 'overwhelming load' to the restraints designed for one floor.

(And, yes, I have drifted the generic claim to a WTC specific context.)

 

[ProBonoShill]

Belated thanks to those who clarified my question on the limiting case.

I have to be honest. As a non-engineer, I've never seen a "smearogram." I do charts (well, I mostly hire smart people to do charts) for business. I can't think of any reason to lay an animated chart over a video, or to measure so many variables in one chart that the result would be a 'smearogram' with both horizontal and vertical lines and many sets of plotlines. The NIST charts, whatever flaws they may have, seem to include error bands, something notably absent from the charts from these guys. I think it might have been myriad who mentioned that Einstein made do without animation, but really. The visuals that MT, femr2, and (especially) achimspok post just can't prove anything. No one could understand these things.

Don't worry engineers haven't seen it either, when you google "smearogram" all roads lead back to Femr and his friend Einsteen.

 

[femr2]

Awww look femr's playing hide n seek again, isn't that charming.

Not at all. I've discussed 9/11 for years.

I've discussed all kinds of possibilities, including demolition of various types, and have rejected truck-loads of them by digging into the details...counting the angels on a pin as some say.

Spending time mining old quotes is a bizarre thing for you to be doing.

Your point ? I've mentioned demolition in old quotes on YT ? LOL.

Once you've all gotten to grips with crush front propogation, we can go into some detail on initiating sequencing and behaviour.

If there's progress, perhaps you can all go home

That would be nice eh ?

 

[tfk]

LoL,

Why would you expect to ? Perimeter peels waaay behind the crush fronts tom.

IOW, you have zero arguments to support your contention that those are not pressure pulses.

You can only repeat your baseless assertion. Over & over & over again.

Are you suggesting the *upper block* is just sitting still up there waiting for a bit of perimeter to fall off ?

Meaningless blather.

I am "suggesting" nothing.

I am stating with clarity & certainty - that others can clearly see - that you have had 20+ opportunities to make your case. To answer the simple questions that I asked you.

You've evaded the questions with every post. You evade the questions still.

You've offered not one single argument to support your contention that the lower jets of ejecta are the crush front, rather than over pressures blowing out windows and debris laden air.

 

[ozeco41]

With the entire* East perimeter peeling BEGINNING just before the end of the clip...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/5/2/69989840.gif[/qimg]

As I said I'll put some AV resources together. Keeping track of that bit of perimeter alone is 100% conclusive on perimeter peeling FAR behind the crush front.

Thanks.

I referred to my historic use of the David S Chandler "stabilised" video.

The commentary is ridiculous and the video not as good as my memory was suggesting.

But it shows dust ejection well ahead of collapse of the corner outer walls. Couldn't find the original YouTube but here is a copy.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread405069/pg1

 

[femr2]

IOW, you have zero arguments to support your contention that those are not pressure pulses.

ROFL. Several very recent posts contain conclusive visual proof.

Have a nice day.

 

[beachnut]

Not at all. I've discussed 9/11 for years.

I've discussed all kinds of possibilities, including demolition of various types, and have rejected truck-loads of them by digging into the details...counting the angels on a pin as some say.

Spending time mining old quotes is a bizarre thing for you to be doing.

Your point ? I've mentioned demolition in old quotes on YT ? LOL.

Once you've all gotten to grips with crush front propogation, we can go into some detail on initiating sequencing and behaviour.

If there's progress, perhaps you can all go home

That would be nice eh ?

I went home on 911, I figured out who did it, how they did it, and that your demolition nonsense was not true. I beat you home by over 9 years. I am an engineer, and the best part, only a grade school education is need to see you and your 911 truth movement are like the blind guys and the elephant. A lesson I learned in first grade debunks 911 truth and exposes you can't figure out 911 in a timely manner.

Who would guess an Indian legend is the only tool people need to debunk and expose you and 911 truth?

How does hot dust start tires on fire and not burn up the people? You were joking, is that old stuff you have dropped?

How does the 28 m/s dust front relate to Bazant's model, 911 CTs, and/or is this off topic smoke to avoid answering questions? Sorry for not realizing you have no clue what happened on 911. After reviewing your goal free videos, and other work, I see you don't know what happen as you study the collapse which will not lead to anything useful.

I found your model of 911 which has the WTC towers' collapse stopping; now that is massive fail. WTCCS Scenario - WTC 1 Collapse Arrest Looks like Bazant's model beat your model for being applicable to the real world. Good luck, it has only been 9 years, maybe in 9 more you will join reality, albeit late. I find your titles of "demolition" to be disrespectful, and immature (self-debunking).

 

[ozeco41]

Yes, Ozeco, the corner temporarily remains standing....
This information also debunks some of the AE911T claims of how these perimeter pieces were "blown" out that far. We can see the mechanism in the gif by femr and the sheet locations in the rubble.

I recall asking multiple times of people putting forward claims of explosive demolition.
"How do you get an explosive to throw heavy steel members 400-600 feet?"

 

[femr2]

How does the 28 m/s dust front relate to Bazant's model

Dust front ? That's actually quite witty beachnut. You're starting down the road of *denying* the visible effect of crush fronts now. Awesome.

I found your model of 911 which has the WTC towers' collapse stopping

Cool. Visualisation tool Parameters set for arrest.

Have a nice day.

 

[tfk]

IOW, you have zero arguments to support your contention that those are not pressure pulses.

ROFL. Several very recent posts contain conclusive visual proof.

IOW, YOU have zero arguments to support your contention that those are not pressure pulses.

"argument: n., reasoning, justification, explanation, rationalization; case, defense; evidence, reasons, grounds."