OOS Collapse Propagation Model
- Thread starter Major_Tom
- Start date
- Status
ozeco41
Philosopher
Major_Tom I asked you one question only:
Far more telling is your "put down" or insult:
However your response seems to tread new ground. Not only are you not prepared to present your own explanation you need to disparage and insult any potential competitor. Could it be that you are trying to claim uniqueness for the "ROOSD" concept as if you and you alone had thought of it?
My purpose in posting was to give you an opportunity to turn away from the noise of personal attacks and insults to engage in reasoned discussion of 'progressive collapse'. Since you do not wish to take advantage of that offer and intend to continue in your style of personal insults I leave you to it.
...I even predicted the likely error you could make in answering. Yet, despite that very strong hint you make the error I cautioned you against and claim:
So my "broad brush without details" description lacks the details. Amazing.
Far more telling is your "put down" or insult:
Utter hogwash. It is the reasoned and logical explanation of a professional engineer describing some inevitabilities of an engineering forensic analysis.
However your response seems to tread new ground. Not only are you not prepared to present your own explanation you need to disparage and insult any potential competitor. Could it be that you are trying to claim uniqueness for the "ROOSD" concept as if you and you alone had thought of it?
My purpose in posting was to give you an opportunity to turn away from the noise of personal attacks and insults to engage in reasoned discussion of 'progressive collapse'. Since you do not wish to take advantage of that offer and intend to continue in your style of personal insults I leave you to it.
It is clear, here is the conclusion Major Tom has. It is an imaginary conspiracy theory.
He made up a technobabble paper to back in CD. Here are his conclusions.
The goal of his paper, to back in CD, make it possible to have his fantasy come true. Was silent RDX used, or thermite. Who did it. As usual 911 truth believers leave out all evidence and facts to support their real conclusion of
Does Major Tom's paper support this statement?
No details on who, or how.
When will the paper be published in a Journal, tomorrow is one year since you tried to back in CD, and failed, which Journal will you pick? When will the math be complete, it has been a year, on the 11th?
Last edited:
Show me one paper by academic or engineering authorities since 9-11-01 that agrees with you.
IF you are right, why has no engineering department or researcher wrote anything describing the true collapse mode? If it seems obvious to you, show me some professional analysis in the last 10 years that sees things your way.
You cannot. Wake up. You really think that OOS propagation is so well known?
Show me one paper in circulation that describes it correctly.
" It is the reasoned and logical explanation of a professional engineer describing some inevitabilities"...
By a "professional engineer" describing some "inevitabilities"......... If it is so obvious to engineers, show me something in writing that confirms your ideas represent some norm.
They don't. You can't find anything else in writing.
Inevitable as was witnessed? Even I never claimed that in the OOS model. I claim a probable threshold over which ROOSD will most likely happen. How does anyone know?
Of course I don't want to claim it as "mine". Other posters at the 9/11 forum would laugh at me. It would be like waking up in the morning and claiming I discovered the nose on my face. Why say such a silly thing?
Who discovered this giant wall?
In retrospect I would be embarrassed to claim discovery of that thing. The question isn't who discovered it but how so many people could have missed the obvious.
Last edited:
Ozeco, for a challenge, try posting that in the other forum and see how well you can defend what you are saying. My guess is you'd be eaten alive with those claims among more talented debaters.
Maybe that sells here. Anything anti-truther sells here. Let us see how well you do over there with all that confidence.
Are you really so sure of what you are saying? Do you stay in the JREF environment because you cannot handle real feedback? Safer here?
Ozeco, don't bother to post it there. I will instead. I would like you to receive some real feedback for once.
Maybe that sells here. Anything anti-truther sells here. Let us see how well you do over there with all that confidence.
Are you really so sure of what you are saying? Do you stay in the JREF environment because you cannot handle real feedback? Safer here?
Ozeco, don't bother to post it there. I will instead. I would like you to receive some real feedback for once.
Last edited:
You discovered gravity collapse. No one missed it except 911 truth.
ozeco41
Philosopher
I said three things and two of them happen to be things you hang your hat on. I cannot credit that you would disagree with your own claims when made by another person - me.
Are you so unsure of yourself that having someone agree with you makes you run for cover? Can we all take it that you are now saying that ROOSD is dead? That you abandon ROOSD because ozeco happened to agree with it? That you are claiming that the outer perimeter columns did not peel off in sheets - some of them ruddy great big sheets?
I'll leave my claims about the core till you make some claim there that I can agree with.
You are not the first person to run away from discussion with me and seek the proxy help of the talent you refer to. Patriots4Truth tried it and failed to attract any interest. He, like you, was running away from discussion. And that discussion was of much the same things as you are now fleeing from. Clear broad picture descriptions of 'global collapse' onto which any necessary details can be attached.
Or is it really that you have fought so hard to avoid making a clear 'big picture' statement?
This is a joke. Run away? What a joke.
You need this illogical environment to communicate, not me. I communicate elsewhere for obvious reasons.
You already know where to get the information you need. If this is your preferred envoronment for communication, it shows how serious you are.
This is your choice of medium. I would never live in this mess.
It is a place whree nobody need take responsibility for incorrect information. People do not check the work of "friends". Cult-like.
The results of such self-stroking are apparent. No real data but people don't seem to care. You should get a lot of great feedback here. Good luck.
You need this illogical environment to communicate, not me. I communicate elsewhere for obvious reasons.
You already know where to get the information you need. If this is your preferred envoronment for communication, it shows how serious you are.
This is your choice of medium. I would never live in this mess.
It is a place whree nobody need take responsibility for incorrect information. People do not check the work of "friends". Cult-like.
The results of such self-stroking are apparent. No real data but people don't seem to care. You should get a lot of great feedback here. Good luck.
Last edited:
Ozeco, If I sincerely wanted the best feedback on a model and chose this forum only to receive it, I would be ashamed.
I have gone where I could find the best information and data. Still do. The 9/11 forum was started by a debunker who remains chief administrator.
The point of subjecting your material for review is not to feel good. If you are serious you will seek out the best feedback wherever it is. If you want to score little points in your mind, you will do it here.
Here you will get the feedback you deserve. I have never seen you require other people to use correct data when talking of the WTC1 initiation process. If you actually used real data, you would realize a couple of big problems with your story. As long as you don't care whether you data is true or false.......the results will be obvious, no?
I have gone where I could find the best information and data. Still do. The 9/11 forum was started by a debunker who remains chief administrator.
The point of subjecting your material for review is not to feel good. If you are serious you will seek out the best feedback wherever it is. If you want to score little points in your mind, you will do it here.
Here you will get the feedback you deserve. I have never seen you require other people to use correct data when talking of the WTC1 initiation process. If you actually used real data, you would realize a couple of big problems with your story. As long as you don't care whether you data is true or false.......the results will be obvious, no?
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Wouldn't that be the academic engineering world?
This is either a lie or you need to explain how "internet forums" somehow trumps academics.
As a description of the complete collapse mechanics of the towers I'll be replacing the OOS collapse model with the larger model of which ROOSD will be one part. This replaces the OOS model:
World Trade Center Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics
The complete collapse mechanics of each tower can be written as a combination of two types of motion.
1) Uneven ROOSD: ROOSD is described in the OOS Propagation Model
2) Dropping of 4 perimeter walls
A simple way to understand the motion of the outside walls: 2 skyscrapers with 4 walls each, giving us 8 separate walls. Each wall is identical to any other, so a general perimeter model of a single wall is introduced and then compared to each of the 8 walls separately.
A general single wall model demonstrating the basic movements observed is linked below:
Single wall model
........
..........
Some important principles of how walls fall:
1) The MER belts (fls 74-78, fls 40-44) play a crucial role in how a wall falls. They cause walls to fall in discrete stages. Walls can peel as single units between MER levels or they can fracture and fall very close to the base of the building, depending on the condition of the MER belt.
2) Uneven ROOSD can cause a wall to twist as it is shed from the building.
3) DIfferent walls drop in different ways depending on these basic observable principles
The 2 most extreme cases are WTC1 west face (long) and WTC2 south face (short). The WTC1 west face fell out as a curving 50 floor sheet, falling long and out from the base of the building. The WTC2 south wall fell as fragmented pieces and angled sheets, an 80 floor perimeter fitting into a very small space up to the base of the building across the street.
WTC 1: Recorded Motion of the Perimeter Walls
West Wall
..........
.........
South Wall
North Wall
WTC 2: Recorded Motion of the Perimeter Walls
East Wall
........
West Wall
South Wall
........
World Trade Center Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics
The complete collapse mechanics of each tower can be written as a combination of two types of motion.
1) Uneven ROOSD: ROOSD is described in the OOS Propagation Model
2) Dropping of 4 perimeter walls
A simple way to understand the motion of the outside walls: 2 skyscrapers with 4 walls each, giving us 8 separate walls. Each wall is identical to any other, so a general perimeter model of a single wall is introduced and then compared to each of the 8 walls separately.
A general single wall model demonstrating the basic movements observed is linked below:
Single wall model
Some important principles of how walls fall:
1) The MER belts (fls 74-78, fls 40-44) play a crucial role in how a wall falls. They cause walls to fall in discrete stages. Walls can peel as single units between MER levels or they can fracture and fall very close to the base of the building, depending on the condition of the MER belt.
2) Uneven ROOSD can cause a wall to twist as it is shed from the building.
3) DIfferent walls drop in different ways depending on these basic observable principles
The 2 most extreme cases are WTC1 west face (long) and WTC2 south face (short). The WTC1 west face fell out as a curving 50 floor sheet, falling long and out from the base of the building. The WTC2 south wall fell as fragmented pieces and angled sheets, an 80 floor perimeter fitting into a very small space up to the base of the building across the street.
WTC 1: Recorded Motion of the Perimeter Walls
West Wall
South Wall
North Wall
WTC 2: Recorded Motion of the Perimeter Walls
East Wall
West Wall
South Wall
Last edited:
Your model serves no purpose, what is the goal? You have a theory of CD, no evidence. Your model proves what, with respect to crazy 911 theories. This is the 911 CT sub-forum where we discuss moronic claims of 911 truth, what failed 911 truth claim does this model go with, or explain? Why have you failed to publish in over a year, if you think this is so important? Do you still support your CD theory?
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
Major_Tom your recent posts must set some sort of a record for missing the point. I posted a simple explanation of the "global collapse" to give you something to respond to.
It says in even simpler terms:
1) The open office space floors were stripped off the columns in a runaway process;
2) The perimeter columns fell away in sheets of varying sizes; AND
3) The core beams were stripped off the core columns.
You have insulted me and ridiculed my explanation without the courtesy of responding to it. OK - that is your choice. You can be of no doubt as to the low opinion I hold of your vendetta of insulting tactics directed at high profile authority figures and more recently with me as the target of your attacks.
The irony from my perspective is that the ridicule you pour on my explanation requires that you disagree with those three points. The first two being identical principles to what you have been espousing for many months - viz:
a) A runaway process in the open office space;
b) Peeling off of unsupported unbraced outer perimeter columns
So ROOSD is alive and well if you say something about it BUT it is the cause of ridicule and insult if someone agrees?
How you can deny those principles when I state them whilst still appearing to support them when you choose to make your own claims beggars rational understanding.
This is the first complete mapping of the collapse dynamics for each tower.
Collapse dynamics consist of 2 main movements, uneven ROOSD and the falling of the perimeter walls.
This is the first time a complete head to toe mapping of collapse process has been put together. In some casews I was able to map the bulk of the entire wall of the 110 story building.
I was able to reconstruct failure lines along a good portion of the perimeter. In one case, WTC2 east wall, I was able to map the collapse process of the entire wall to the point of identifying 2 bolted seams along which 3 30 story perimeter sheets broke.
Basically, I have shown that the whole collapse process is mappable and the movement is knowable simply by carefully watching the process from multiple angles and a good knowledge of the resulting debris field.
In short, there isn't a whole lot of mystery left in the particular ways in which each of the twin towers fell.
Collapse dynamics consist of 2 main movements, uneven ROOSD and the falling of the perimeter walls.
This is the first time a complete head to toe mapping of collapse process has been put together. In some casews I was able to map the bulk of the entire wall of the 110 story building.
I was able to reconstruct failure lines along a good portion of the perimeter. In one case, WTC2 east wall, I was able to map the collapse process of the entire wall to the point of identifying 2 bolted seams along which 3 30 story perimeter sheets broke.
Basically, I have shown that the whole collapse process is mappable and the movement is knowable simply by carefully watching the process from multiple angles and a good knowledge of the resulting debris field.
In short, there isn't a whole lot of mystery left in the particular ways in which each of the twin towers fell.
Ozeco, I have absolutely nothing against you. You stepped into the middle of a fight. It is like walking into a saloon in the wild west.
I don't have anything negative to say about your presentation at all. I am not competing with you in the least.
You will not get a sane, reasoned discussion here.
We do different things. Basically, the images I put together confirm the ideas you and others have had a while ago.
I do not appreciate when I have to request that people use real data instead of false data for months (almost 1 year now). I have been doing it a long time, and now you are telling me not to bother people who continue to use false data.
False data is at the heart of your misunderstanding of the WTC1 collapse process. I will continuously remind people of that until they use real data.
I don't have anything negative to say about your presentation at all. I am not competing with you in the least.
You will not get a sane, reasoned discussion here.
We do different things. Basically, the images I put together confirm the ideas you and others have had a while ago.
I do not appreciate when I have to request that people use real data instead of false data for months (almost 1 year now). I have been doing it a long time, and now you are telling me not to bother people who continue to use false data.
False data is at the heart of your misunderstanding of the WTC1 collapse process. I will continuously remind people of that until they use real data.
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
Mappings of the movement of each of the perimeter walls while tracking ROOSD progression allows the viewer to see how the towers collapsed for the first time from top to bottom.
Perimeter walls generally fall in a multi-stage process as they are stripped of flooring by the passing ROOSD progression.
Looking at the details of each wall falling, it is interesting to look back on a day not too long ago when people actually believed the towers fell something like this:
This, of course, is like a cave man drawing relative to the WTC twin towers collapse dynamics visually recorded here.
Even so, it still stands as the most current published academic theory to date.
I think I debunked the crush down, then crush up propagation model a while ago but there still seem to be some hard-core Bazantistas hanging on.
Now that it is acually possible to track global movement in a surprisingly specific way, I'm sure we can all share a good laugh at how gullible some of us were to believe in such a primitive concept as crush down, then crush up for tubular structure like the twin towers.
Lighten up, guys, and learn to laugh at yourselves. It is healthy.
Perimeter walls generally fall in a multi-stage process as they are stripped of flooring by the passing ROOSD progression.
Looking at the details of each wall falling, it is interesting to look back on a day not too long ago when people actually believed the towers fell something like this:
This, of course, is like a cave man drawing relative to the WTC twin towers collapse dynamics visually recorded here.
Even so, it still stands as the most current published academic theory to date.
I think I debunked the crush down, then crush up propagation model a while ago but there still seem to be some hard-core Bazantistas hanging on.
Now that it is acually possible to track global movement in a surprisingly specific way, I'm sure we can all share a good laugh at how gullible some of us were to believe in such a primitive concept as crush down, then crush up for tubular structure like the twin towers.
Lighten up, guys, and learn to laugh at yourselves. It is healthy.
Last edited:
And you still misunderstand the reach and purpose of that model, no matter how many times you have been pointed it.[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/BV_fig1.png[/qimg]
This, of course, is like a cave man drawing relative to the WTC twin towers collapse dynamics visually recorded here.
Even so, it still stands as the most current published academic theory to date.
It didn't mean to represent accurately the collapse. Its purpose was to provide a way to formalize the collapse, in order to make it tractable with equations, something that your model completely lacks.
It might be arguable whether that model falls into the spherical cow oversimplification problem, but nobody here has provided evidence of that being the case, not to mention providing an alternate, more accurate mathematical model. I opened a thread specifically to show that, but since you have posted that mindless attack here I'm responding here.
I knew there were a few remaining Bazantista pockets of resistance remaining.
My guess is that pgimeno, Beachnut and tfk are still true believers.
Pgimeno, is there anything in academic or professional literature in the last 10 years that has described the collapse mode accurately? Are they ever going to bother or are they just going to stick with those cartoon drawings?
That is interesting because I am able to basically map the motion of each tower using only photos and video available to the public.
I believe you sincerely believe you know what you are talking about.
You seem determined to build a small fortress in your mind around your beliefs, like a belief that early acceleration profiles close to g are normal and expected, or you belief that crush down, then crush up actually means something real.
The confines of that fortress is what you perceive as "reality". Though you cannot see it, that is where your "analysis" and "debate" begins and ends, at the edge of your personal beliefs.
In this sense you seem a microcosm which reflects the larger JREF mentality. This being known, the cure is simple. Try scepticism rather than fawning on anything official.
It is ironic that a lack of scepticism and a gullibility for anything authoritative is at the heart of your problem.
My guess is that pgimeno, Beachnut and tfk are still true believers.
Pgimeno, is there anything in academic or professional literature in the last 10 years that has described the collapse mode accurately? Are they ever going to bother or are they just going to stick with those cartoon drawings?
That is interesting because I am able to basically map the motion of each tower using only photos and video available to the public.
I believe you sincerely believe you know what you are talking about.
You seem determined to build a small fortress in your mind around your beliefs, like a belief that early acceleration profiles close to g are normal and expected, or you belief that crush down, then crush up actually means something real.
The confines of that fortress is what you perceive as "reality". Though you cannot see it, that is where your "analysis" and "debate" begins and ends, at the edge of your personal beliefs.
In this sense you seem a microcosm which reflects the larger JREF mentality. This being known, the cure is simple. Try scepticism rather than fawning on anything official.
It is ironic that a lack of scepticism and a gullibility for anything authoritative is at the heart of your problem.
Last edited:
- Status