Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

[ozeco41]

As to the OP, I do concur with many others that BV, BL and BLBG offer quite reasonable and professional assessments that the tower collapses did not require secret demolition explosives or thermitic compounds....

Agreed but be aware of a little trap in BLGB. The "no demolition' conclusion is based on a strawman misrepresentation of the pro-demolition claims. From the opening paragraphs of BLGB "...it is totally out of range of the free fall hypothesis, on which these allegations rest." Well only a limited number of demolition claims rest on the premise of "free fall". I suspect that BLG&B would reconsider that proviso if they were warned about it but....

Germane to this forum, there is no equivalent engineering model to support the truther argument in favor of such demolition....

Its even broader. There has never been a supportable complete explanation of how demolition could have been achieved. That includes the security and logistic aspects of how 'they' could do it without getting caught PLUS the engineering aspects of what devices installed at what locations to cause what effects which then blended invisibly into the natural seeming collapse.

I have commented multiple times on the inefficiency of approaching a 'MIHOP' plan from the technical domain. The big barriers IMNSHO lie in the security and logistic domains. Though it does not cover all the options the idea of invisible suicide squads working among the flames of the impact and fire zone to position fireproof explosive devices to the bits that the aircraft and fires did not damage.....well shall we say 'unlikely'

So:

...The rest of the bickering about what exactly happened in each second of each collapse is quite irrelevant to the question of demolition, given the above. Especially when the main advocates of alternative thinking utterly fail to present a single shred of evidence of explosives in the process...

...see previous bit of ridicule.

 

[ozeco41]

...You and other CD theorists will no doubt claim that fire can be ruled out, and CD is the only possible explanation...

Remember it is not 'fire OR CD'. It is 'fire OR fire plus CD' Or to be pedantic impact damage plus fire damage plus CD.

And that puts massive constraints on the CD. It has to blend with the impact and fire damage so that the CD assistance cannot be detected.

When I first looked at Twin Towers collapse - 2007 in discussion with an acquaintance who is a conspiracy nut - I looked at it from the perspective of a military engineer. "How would I demolish these towers if the General tasked me to do it?" That one relatively easy with no constraints - blast the buggery out of columns at ground level on one side. Sure it would be messy and noisy and everyone would know you did it.

But the the more subtle one - "Use demolition to assist by the collapse of the towers after aircraft impact and fire damage without being detected?" No way. I think given benefit of hindsight it would be practical to mimic the collapses but not in conjunction with an unpredictable aircraft strike and fires.

Of course "Why do it?" remains the big question. Add that one to my previous post "Why complicate a simple terrorist plan to fly four aircraft into iconic American buildings by an impractical plan to add demolition assistance to ensure collapse?"

 

[femr2]

Is everybody happy that the top block and accumulating debris fell mostly inside the outer tube of the lower tower? If not why not?

Mostly. Behaviour of 1 & 2 is obviously different from a simplistic external viewpoint. However the rapid formation of crush fronts split by multiple storeys is very similar for both 1 & 2, all driven by masses inside the perimeter. Differences in the trailing debris are pretty irrelevant to the primary mode of destruction.

Is everybody satisfied that parts of the outer tube were left behind by the advancing collapse front and fell later? If not why not?

Yes. In addition, perimeter stripped from multiple faces of *upper block* very early in descent, leaving a *skinned* upper block consisting of unsupported OOS slabs and the core region. Stripping of the OOS slabs from the core provided mass for ROOSD very early in descent. Mechanism for providing enough OOS mass early enough in descent for observed ROOSD development still to be confirmed.

If we really do need to revise this 2007 era stuff lets do it and get it out of the way.

Hmm.

Now for myself I prefer videos which clearly show the basics over words which we struggle to interpret. A picture is worth a thousand words.

Especially so for this kind of topic. There is so much *word history* that it is ultimately more productive to wave a photo and point, even if the arrow is very small and pointing at a tenth of a pixel.

 

[femr2]

I have commented multiple times on the inefficiency of approaching a 'MIHOP' plan from the technical domain. The big barriers IMNSHO lie in the security and logistic domains. Though it does not cover all the options the idea of invisible suicide squads working among the flames of the impact and fire zone to position fireproof explosive devices to the bits that the aircraft and fires did not damage.....well shall we say 'unlikely'

I would have thought your recent participation in discussion of the informal ammonium perchlorate outline would perhaps lead you to reassess your approach to such.

 

[ozeco41]

What happened? "let's think about what must have happened"; terrorist took 4 jets and crashed three of them into buildings, killing people...

Yes - a very simple and effective plan. Then two of the buildings fell down - something which caught the engineering profession world wide by surprise. the profession learned. The situation somewhat analogous to the Tacoma Narrows bridge event. It has been said that doctors bury their mistakes whilst we engineers make them in full public view... The Westgate Bridge in Melbourne was one of our local ones - although it was a balls up not a natural phenomenon. http://www.westgatebridge.org/collapse.html

...A few 911 truthers can't comprehend Bazant's model, or 911....

Yes. Likewise a few 'debunkers'.

... You treat them as if they had substance....

Yes, I can discern those who have substance to offer from those who don't.

I have not the slightest difficulty accepting a true statement as true whoever makes it. I have no need to make false accusations or insult people simply because they are labelled as truthers.

 

[ozeco41]

I would have thought your recent participation in discussion of the informal ammonium perchlorate outline would perhaps lead you to reassess your approach to such.

It is the best technical scheme I have seen but does have a couple of big gaps in the security/logistic/planning domains.

 

[femr2]

It is the best technical scheme I have seen but does have a couple of big gaps in the security/logistic/planning domains.

Of course, and no doubt there will be some assuming that by mentioning it that it is the basis of my opinion. Not the case, it has simply not been definitively ruled out at a technical/behavioural level. Focus on initiation sequencing and mechanism will clarify.

WTC1 Trace data reveals detectable motion ~9.5s in advance of release, possibly longer. Detection of such is thus far not possible via current techniques due to the camera shake evident on the Sauret footage from which the high precision trace data is extracted.

 

[pgimeno]

There's no better evidence than real-world footage illustrating the point perfectly.

I've highlighted the point of contention. In order to prove that the collapse front consists of the lower ejections, showing how the perimeter peels far afterwards is not what I call "illustrating the point perfectly", as that does not discard other reasons for the perimeter peeling like that, like, say, the top + rubble sections exerting pressure on the bottom section.

I don't know if you realize that what is under question is not the perimeter peeling, but the lowest ejections being the crush front.

Focus.

Showing ejections at different heights kind of helps with your point, but is not enough. Neglecting to address tfk's points is definitely harming it.

 

[pgimeno]

Agreed but be aware of a little trap in BLGB. The "no demolition' conclusion is based on a strawman misrepresentation of the pro-demolition claims.

It might be a misrepresentation of the pro-demolition claims if you include the least known of them, but certainly not a misrepresentation of the mainstream pro-demolition claims, those which MT et al are also contending.

 

[tsig]

Thanks. The reason I asked the question was that some 'debunker side' members has said they disagreed with the global collapse mechanism as I outlined it. They were then using that to disagree with femr2 and Major_Tom about ROOSD.

Quite a funny bit of role reversal since ROOSD is merely a femr2/Major_Tom label for what is the closest thing to a mainstream debunker side accepted explanation of the global collapse. Taken into more detailed explanation by Major_Tom.

Closest thing because most 'debunker side' people don't concern themselves with the details BUT two of us posting here have extended their explanations of global collapse. The irony for some would be that Major_Tom - who is categorised as a truther by most - has extended and added detail to the 'debunker side' explanation. Then, not as well known but published for some years, I have also posted more expansive explanations. And no way am I a truther.

So we seemed to reach the situation where debunkers were disagreeing with a debunker explanation because Major_Tom had claimed ownership of it by giving it a name. If I was a cynic I would be amused at the 'reversal' situation but I will let that opportunity for digression pass.

Do you think it was a CD?

 

[femr2]

I've highlighted the point of contention. In order to prove that the collapse front consists of the lower ejections

Clearly not what the video segment is intended to prove.

Clearly, as made clear by the accompanying words, the purpose is to illustrate perimeter peel far behind crush front.

It does so rather well, and indeed shows that the crush front is FAR ahead. Many floors ahead, not just 'a bit'.

So far ahead that the clip shows that asking the question or suggesting that it's not possible is a particularly inept thing to do, suggesting that there are many folk who, whilst they are prepared to argue ad infinitum about the content of various reports, have not actually looked at any of the video evidence in any detail at all.

showing how the perimeter peels far afterwards is not what I call "illustrating the point perfectly"

Given that the point is showing that the perimeter peels far afterwards, I think it does rather a fine job.

as that does not discard other reasons for the perimeter peeling like that, like, say, the top + rubble sections exerting pressure on the bottom section.

Where do the causes of peeling come into proving the existance of peeling trailing crush front propogation ?

I've even stated the most probable cause, namely the wedge action of the tilted *upper section*.

I don't know if you realize that what is under question is not the perimeter peeling, but the lowest ejections being the crush front.

Incorrect. Two questions were posed. The video clip answers one.

That answer really should result in retraction of the other and a hasty retreat for a while, but regardless, MT has posted some detail for that other question.

As I said several times, I'll gather some AV resources.

I may not be able to resist posting visual evidence, pointing, and laughing, but I'll try not to do the last of those actions.

Focus.

Yes, please make sure you know what topic is being addressed.

I would have thought the words beneath the posted video segment...
Perimeter peel far, far behind crush front, pushed outwards by the wedge action of the *upper block*.
...would be a bit of a hint for you there.

Pretty ironic bearing in mind you highlighted the text...illustrating the point perfectly.

Showing ejections at different heights kind of helps with your point, but is not enough. Neglecting to address tfk's points is definitely harming it.

I suggest you reasess this section of your post.

 

[femr2]

It might be a misrepresentation of the pro-demolition claims if you include the least known of them, but certainly not a misrepresentation of the mainstream pro-demolition claims, those which MT et al are also contending.

More irony. It's been a fairly, er, tense? discussion recently. Chill. Focus.

 

[tfk]

oz,

I'm beginning to think that that you may not be as transparent, objective or middle of the road as you portray yourself to be...

I've dealt with stealth truthers before. Those who decided to play the charade of "I'll pretend to be undecided, and then go thru the drama of being convinced by the compellingness of the truthers' arguments. That'll win points for 'our side'."

Those folks were never as convincing as they thought they were.

There are more than a few reasons that I think that this may be the case. Not the least is that I find it nearly impossible to believe that there exists an engineer who is undecided 9 years after the event.

Please tell me that this is not what you are doing ...

…
Certainly tfk ridiculed the idea that the top block fell mostly inside the outer tube of the lower tower ...

This is a complete misportrayal of what I wrote & what I believe.

Of course the top block fell "mostly inside" the bottom one. I never said one, single word to suggest otherwise.

This is not a minor revision or misinterpretation of what I've said. So as far as I am concerned, you've lost your privilege to interpret my words. I request that, from now on, you ask me what I mean, rather than telling others what I mean.

I strongly disagree with the requirement that the others (& now you) have expressed, which is that the entire upper block must have somehow shrunk laterally while crushing down and fit inside the lower block.

Take ANY complex structure around (a latticework structure like a crane would be best, but a car will do too) and smash it into any other structure. Show me what percent of them shrink laterally at the impact surface, and what percent of them "mushroom" outwards. In my experience, the shrink/mushroom ratio is 0%/100%.

My second point is that, I don't even know if I disagree with femr's & MT's conclusion. I find it highly unlikely on first examination, for exactly the reasons that I've laid out.

Unfortunately they are adamantly unwilling AND unable to make their own case.

Putting up videos, and saying "there", when the interpretation of the videos is the specific point of disagreement, does not constitute making a case. It specifically does constitutes obstinately refusing to make a case.

They refuse to construct cogent "If this ..., then that ..." arguments.

I believe that they refuse to construct them because they know that they will fall on their faces.

But ultimately, it doesn't matter why they refuse to construct cogent arguments. They render themselves utterly irrelevant, they castrate their own POV, by refusing to construct cogent "if ... then" arguments.

* Is everybody happy that the top block and accumulating debris fell mostly inside the outer tube of the lower tower? If not why not?

I presume everyone is. I know that I am.

And I know that this question is irrelevant to my objection.

Let me ask a couple of questions that are pertinent to my objection.

* "How many people believe that, at the moment of collapse, the upper block could somehow fit inside the lower block?"

* "How many people believe that, as the upper mass smashed down thru the lower block, the crush front got narrower, rather than wider?"

* "How many people believe that the upper leading edge of the crush front could, in some way, "slip inside" of the lower structure, thereby performing this "strip the inner floors, leaving the external walls standing" trick?"


Now I'll get to the point of the Gaussian density distribution" question that I asked, and that femr, Major_Tom & (curiously, for an unbiased seeker of the truth) you ignored …

*"How many people believe that, as time passed during the crush down, the leading edge of the crush down got more sharply defined, more sudden versus how many people believe that the leading edge got less sharply defined, more gradual?"


And my last question, paying appropriate respect to those Big-Picture folks who are not interested in this mechanical esoterica (as I am) …

*"How many people believe that, whether the upper block could, or could not, slide into the lower block is brain-dead stupidly irrelevant to the question of "was it an inside job?"

tk

 

[femr2]

Your ROOSD is simple a late bit of claptrap, constructed by a bunch of fools.

And it's not worth my time.
...
THAT'S your "ROOSD" story??



Sure thing.

Do you know what the tensile strength of a 3/4" mild steel bolt is? You had about 120 of them stretched across each floor, tying the exterior columns to the cables tied to the trusses. They failed in tension.

Do you know what the shear strength of same sized bolt is? You had about 60 of those tying each truss to its truss seat. Those failed in shear.

Tell me again how a 200' wide by 6 story tall wall of free standing 14" x 14" x 1/4" thick box columns are going to continue standing serenely while one entire floor's worth of those bolts are all jerked, from one side, to failure.

When they are famously "pulling" a free-standing wall of a building to failure with cables, do you think that they need to use that many bolts?
___

Ever seen a bulldozer plow its way thru a rocky field? That is, in essence, what the upper block is doing to the lower block.

Ever notice how the material being plowed does not form a perfectly straight line, equal in width to the bulldozer's blade? But rather builds up on each side of the blade & is shoved sideways as the dozer cuts a swath.

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" …?

Oh dear. All those laughing dogs are looking at you Tom.

Perimeter peel ocurred far behind crush front propogation.

Fact.

 

[tsig]

oz,

I'm beginning to think that that you may not be as transparent, objective or middle of the road as you portray yourself to be...

I've dealt with stealth truthers before. Those who thought decided to play the charade of "I'll pretend to be undecided, and then go thru the drama of being convinced by the compellingness of the truthers' arguments. That'll win points for 'our side'."

Those folks were never as convincing as they thought they were.

There are more than a few reasons that I think that this may be the case. Not the least is that I find it nearly impossible to believe that there exists an engineer who is undecided 9 years after the event.

I've had suspicions about oz for time time now. His wide-eyed naivety and 'innocent' questions seem a little over the top.

 

[tfk]

We know much more now than Bazant did in 2007 about specifics of the collapses.

STUNDIE ...!!!

Son, you will NEVER know "much more than Bazant" about ANY aspect of ANYTHING related to structural mechanics.

 

[femr2]

oz,

I'm beginning to think that that you may not be as transparent, objective or middle of the road as you portray yourself to be...

I've dealt with stealth truthers before. Those who thought decided to play the charade of "I'll pretend to be undecided, and then go thru the drama of being convinced by the compellingness of the truthers' arguments. That'll win points for 'our side'."

Oh dear Tom.

ozeco41 has made it abundently clear that he thinks the notion of CD, MIHOP, LIHOP and any number of other acronyms are ridiculous.

That you become paranoid about his intentions and go on the attack is absolutely hilarious.

I hope he laughs it off, as it's about time there was a voice of reason around here that doesn't have the highly *skeptic*-convenient moniker of *nutjob twoofer* applied to every response from those who suffer from inordinate consequences of hubris on a regular basis. (See my previous post )

I strongly disagree with the requirement that the others (& now you) have expressed, which is that the entire upper block must have somehow shrunk laterally while crushing down and fit inside the lower block.

ROFL. You just invented that Tom. Who said that, other than you ?

Indeed the folk I think you are aiming that little arse-covering invention at have explicitly and repeatedly stated the viewpoint that the *upper block* was rapidly stripped of it's perimeter (which was mostly ejected laterally just after initiation) leaving unsupported OOS flooring which was similarly stripped from the core region.

Take ANY complex structure...

No deflection Tom (pun intended).

Putting up videos, and saying "there", when the interpretation of the videos is the specific point of disagreement, does not constitute making a case. It specifically does constitutes obstinately refusing to make a case.

ROFL.

Do you need me to show you the video again, but with arrows on it ? Can do, but it will mean showing you a (moving) picture, pointing, and (as you are such an unpleasant fellow) laughing.

* "How many people believe that, at the moment of collapse, the upper block could somehow fit inside the lower block?"

Strawman.

* "How many people believe that, as the upper mass smashed down thru the lower block, the crush front got narrower, rather than wider?"

Strawman.

* "How many people believe that the upper leading edge of the crush front could, in some way, "slip inside" of the lower structure, thereby performing this "strip the inner floors, leaving the external walls standing" trick?"

ROFL. The dimensions of a floor slab conveniently fit inside the perimeter you know Tom. Otherwide the OOS floor slabs would poke out the side of the tower.

Keep digging.

Have a nice day.


ozeco41,

Don't let the bar stewards grind you down You've made your position clear. I applaud your principles, regardless of whether I agree or not.

 

[tfk]

Oh dear. All those laughing dogs are looking at you Tom.

Perimeter peel ocurred far behind crush front propogation.

Fact.

One more example - as if we needed one - of the fact that you are utterly incompetent at either constructing your own arguments or rebutting other people's arguments.

Fact.

 

[tfk]

oz,

Quite a funny bit of role reversal since ROOSD is merely a femr2/Major_Tom label for what is the closest thing to a mainstream debunker side accepted explanation of the global collapse.

Again, please provide some citation for this assertion.


tk

 

[femr2]

I missed a very interesting behaviour in my last post.

Consider the following from tfk...

* "How many people believe that, at the moment of collapse, the upper block could somehow fit inside the lower block?"

* "How many people believe that, as the upper mass smashed down thru the lower block, the crush front got narrower, rather than wider?"

* "How many people believe that the upper leading edge of the crush front could, in some way, "slip inside" of the lower structure, thereby performing this "strip the inner floors, leaving the external walls standing" trick?"

Now, these questions immediately suggest that Tom is under the impression that people believe the non-existant virtual model behaviour such as that portrayed in the texts of Bazant and co.

His questions suggest he believes that destruction ocurred floor-by-floor, with perimeter panels being flung outwards at the point of crush, with an intact upper section fitting neatly on top riding the wave on down.

Wow.

Talk about bang on topic eh