OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[Seymour Butz]

Post #3 from this thread:


Most of us here are aware of the differences between BV and BZ. However if you'd care to look at Major_Tom's responses to the above quote from 2010, he disagrees. I presume he still disagrees. But I can't follow what argument he thinks he's trying to make anymore as he won't explain anything.

This is why I keep getting annoyed at his comments of "they can both be true" or "there is an incompatibility". His ideas and Bazant's ideas aren't addressing the same things. And we've explained that to him. But he keeps saying his silly slogans again an again and won't elaborate on why he thinks we're wrong.

Don't know why you even bother with this guy. Oz already said that he's admitted to just be trolling...

 

[WilliamSeger]

The only resistance I can see to moving the discussion forward is coming from M_T himself.

 

[DGM]

The only resistance I can see to moving the discussion forward is coming from M_T himself.

As soon as everyone agrees with him he will move on and enlighten us (or have we already been enlightened and we just don't know it).

 

[jaydeehess]

The comments linked:

...............If anyone wishes to defend this bumbling set of posts by R Mackey, please do so now.


Next, we can check out by Myriad.

We can all read other's posts any time we wish to.

Time for YOU to explain what YOUR take on the various Bazant papers is and let us discuss YOUR interpretations.

But that is merely a distraction. Its time for this discussion to move on. YOU do have something else to say don't you?

 

[ozeco41]

As soon as everyone agrees with him he will move on and enlighten us (or have we already been enlightened and we just don't know it).

As I said to Newtons Bit "One side or the other has to break out of that circling game. History says that "we" will not get Tom to stop playing his JAQing innuendo personal comments style. So ball in our court."

There are three options for this thread:
1) Get Major_Tom to make his own claims and support them - history says he won't.
2) "We" - or "I" - state the claims rather than keep asking him to be clear; OR
3) "We" ("jointly OR severally") ignore the thread.

I've tried bits of "2)" and "3)" - no success.

So time for the "earwiggo song"*





* "earwiggo round the mulberry bush"

 

[ozeco41]

...Time for YOU to explain what YOUR take on the various Bazant papers is and let us discuss YOUR interpretations.

 

[DGM]

As I said to Newtons Bit "One side or the other has to break out of that circling game................

Why?

The time that this subject held any interest has long since past.

You don't actually think MT will add anything of substance to the understanding of the collapses (rhetorical question)?

 

[ozeco41]

Why?

My error - I missed the fourth option. I assumed that no one would want to keep "going round in circles".

I won't go back and edit the post - put this one in:
4) Keep going round in circles.
...then the facetious reference to the "earwiggo song" should be more obvious.

The time that this subject held any interest has long since past.

Which subject? It would be "one giant leap for mankind" if we could even agree what "this subject" is.

You don't actually think MT will add anything of substance to the understanding of the collapses (rhetorical question)?

Yes and no - that for me is the interesting part. Yes he could - No he won't. Most of the comments are still at cross purposes and no way can M_T sort out that situation.

Hence my multiple hints to take out all the personal commentary and focus on being specific with the technical issues.

It won't happen.

 

[ozeco41]

Here's my take on those pesky papers - just did a quick scan refresher read. They are all "academic heavy reading" - and that "41" doesn't help May have missed something.

B&Z Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis
Accepted as the definitive "Limit Case" for many years. Probably was valid for that purpose despite a recent challenge to the maths. Does not describe the "real event collapse mechanism". ozeco41 opinion - seems to have been the basis for the NIST conclusion "global collapse was inevitable". That conclusion now known to be valid without needing B&Z - B&Z is past it's "use by date" for several reasons - continues to add to confusion.

BV Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions
Presents a "...simplified one-dimensional analytical solution of the collapse front propagation.." intended to be a foundation for development of tools to analyse demolitions. It purports to use WTC Twins 9/11 collapses as a "paradigm". HOWEVER is uses the abstract model from B&Z as its starting point - not the real event collapse mechanisms. To make it one-dimensional requires technically conflating the three factors of the real progressions viz 1) led by material falling down the office space tube; 2) causes perimeter peel off; and 3) core destruction. Also it introduces the "crush-down crush-up" concept.
Ozeco41 opinion - useless in the discussion of the "OOS Model" because it conflates the very issues which OOS Model seeks to differentiate. No point trying to describe the difference between apples and oranges by claiming "they are both fruit". It is definitely not a "limit case", and the "crush-down crush-up" concept as defined by BV is not relevant to WTC 9/11 collapses.

BL (replies to BV) Closure to “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions”
Several authors comments disagreeing with some aspects of BV - mostly dismissed by BV. Ozeco41 opinion. Adds nothing to the topic of this thread.

BLGB What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York.
Sets out to disprove CD claims. Accepts B&Z as if it was the real model. Accepts "crush-down crush-up" as if it applied to the real event. Does a lot of fancy maths to prove CD not needed. Ozeco41 opinion. They are probably right but most of us have a much broader grasp of the arguments against CD than the specific narrow focus of these academics. So it adds nothing to this thread topic though it may add to confusion if anyone thinks it is relevant.

 

[DGM]

Here's my take on those pesky papers - just did a quick scan refresher read. They are all "academic heavy reading" - and that "41" doesn't help May have missed something.

I think you pretty much nailed it.

Thought experiment:

Who has used these papers more in the advance of their "theory"?

I think you know who I vote for.

 

[DGM]

If I might continue this thought a bit:

All of Tony Sz's "papers" are based on miss-application of the Bazant works. None have any basis in reality.

I might go on later..............

 

[ozeco41]

I think you pretty much nailed it.

Thanks. I even avoided any superfluity of redundant verbosity.

Thought experiment:

Who has used these papers more in the advance of their "theory"?

Certainly not ME!! I always do my own thinking and never rely on the reasoning of the authorities. Made that big decision in first week of forum posting back in 2007. Reasons explained many times. I first put my brain through the gymnastics of those papers when pgimeno OP'ed the "applicability" thread back in 2010. I hate reading academic papers - too much like hard work - only do it when I have to.

I think you know who I vote for.

 

[DGM]

I hate reading academic papers - too much like hard work - only do it when I have to.

I'm with you there. That's why I have engineers on tap...,...

 

[ozeco41]

If I might continue this thought a bit:

All of Tony Sz's "papers" are based on miss-application of the Bazant works. None have any basis in reality.

I might go on later..............

Spot on.

This was the opening of my first post on the internet - 14 Nov 2007:

The supporters of 9/11 conspiracies build on the same foundation as the creationists - poor logic, worse science together with distortions, lies and deliberate deceptions.

The paper referenced as Engineering Reality by Tony Szamboti is typical of many which look impressive in detail to the non-engineer. The complex calculations may even be correct but the base premises are faulty and the resulting conclusions can readily be demonstrated to be totally wrong.

...that was on the Richard Dawkins forum hence the opening comment about creationists and it was long before I met T Sz on this forum. IMNSHO all of T Sz's papers and main posted claims make that same error - wrong starting premises set up to ensure the outcome. "Missing Jolt" looks for a future event (the jolt) when the opportunity for the jolt is already past at the start of the argument. In effect it assumes CD then circles the logic round to prove the assumption. The lone exception of Tony's papers is the recent one Sz, Sz and J where I suspect that the other Sz held the reins. And that paper pulls the rug out from under Missing Jolt - a bit of irony which no-one seems interested in.

And all based on misapplication of Bazant & Zhou's abstract model to the real world. And a lot of debunkers fell for the false premise. All that effort wasted looking for jolts when the specific jolt he claimed was missing could never have been.

You cannot mix and match abstract with real unless you know exactly what you are doing. And "Cannot Mix and Match" is probably the briefest statement of the current issue in this thread...but let's stay away from that.

 

[ozeco41]

I'm with you there. That's why I have engineers on tap...,...

I had to manage a lot of them. And the number who fall for "alligator v swamp" syndrome. Losing the plot.

That's why I'm never in awe of detailed focus engineers - specially when leaves take over from forests v trees - or alligators as I said previously.

"Why TF are we discussing this?" "Let's go back and see what we are trying to prove?"

..."but but but...the fourteenth extrapolation of the FEA says..that the twelfth microdot from the..."

...been there. Done that.

 

[jaydeehess]

Here's my take on those pesky papers - just did a quick scan refresher read. They are all "academic heavy reading" - and that "41" doesn't help May have missed something.

Were I to add a number to my name, it'd be 56. That combined with non-engineer status makes it quite a slog. However, I do what we were always taught to do in exams, read through the parts you get right away and go back to the rest later. When I read some articles in Sci-Am I do the same, and I'm note interested in, for eg. dark matter.

B&Z Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis
Accepted as the definitive "Limit Case" for many years. ...... "global collapse was inevitable". That conclusion now known to be valid without needing B&Z - B&Z is past it's "use by date" for several reasons - continues to add to confusion.[/I]

BV Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions
Presents a "...simplified one-dimensional analytical solution of the collapse front propagation...... It is definitely not a "limit case", and the "crush-down crush-up" concept as defined by BV is not relevant to WTC 9/11 collapses.[/I]

BL (replies to BV) Closure to “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions”
Adds nothing to the topic of this thread. [/I]

BLGB What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York.. So it adds nothing to this thread topic though it may add to confusion if anyone thinks it is relevant. [/I]

Bazant came up with two limit cases, one in which the total upper mass came down upon the floor pan, and the other in which that force was in axial contact with the columns.
In both cases global collapse is inevitable.
Is what you term as "adds nothing to" , or is irrelevant to", M_T refers to as contradictory?

ETA: asking you since he probably wouldn't answer the question.

 

[ozeco41]

...Is what you term as "adds nothing to" , or is irrelevant to", M_T refers to as contradictory?

ETA: asking you since he probably wouldn't answer the question.

Well spotted!

My focus had shifted from Major_Tom's "contradictions" to my own objective which, as usual, is "explain the collapses".
Let me take your two points in turn:

1) The "adds nothing to" came from my comment about BL where I said "...Adds nothing to the topic of this thread".

It adds nothing to explaining the collapses BECAUSE both the two respondents, Szuladzinski and Gourley, do not discuss the actual collapse mechanism. They discuss the Bazant models as per BV - which are not explanations of the real event therefore:

-- They contradict "real event" explanations such as Major-Tom's OOS, my "Three Mechanisms" version and any others which have been published;
-- They add nothing to understanding the "real event" - which was where my focus had shifted. Sorry for the confusion.

HOWEVER, if I switch my focus back to the "contradictions" that M_T identified both of them then we see that all three parties - Szuladzinski and Gourley PLUS B&L in the closure comments conflict with what happened in the real event. B & Le disagree with Szuladzinski and Gourley in the context of the BV paper which is abstract model NOT real event.

Szuladzinski
(BTW - an "aside" - Szuladzinski is an interesting case - recall he was the first "Sz" in the recent paper with Sz (Szamboti) and Johns(?). Szuladzinski has a long record of disagreeing with Bazant and some of his disagreements prima facie to me make sense. I suspect that he has been outflanked by Bazant mainly due to Bazant's power status ranking rather than on valid technical grounds. He may well have been identifying some issues where Bazant was sus...I haven't researched it. There's a side track there for some other time. )

However in this instance of BL for the progression stage, which is what we and M_T are discussing, he follows at least two aspects of the BV modelling (and it's origin in BZ):
(a) Columns in line as the path for resistive forces and he accepts the "crush-down crush-up" paradigm as defined by BV and both those sub aspects are in conflict with what really happened including M_T's OOS/ROOSD descriptions of the real event;
(b) He criticises a part of BV which is a "rigid block" explanation reminiscent of Heiwa (Begging the question of "where did Heiwa get it from???" ) B&Le rebut his rigid block criticisms BUT both are clearly within the 1D paradigm of "blocks" acting as 1D homogeneous objects whether "rigid", "elastic" or "plastic". So that aspect is in direct conflict with "what really happened" as per M_T's OOS explanation, my more comprehensive but less detailed "Three Mechanisms" explanation and any other similar "real event" explanations which may have been published.

Gourley
Gourley also accepts "block modelling" and "crush-down crush-up" so is in conflict with the real event explanations. He also has a few other errors including some related to the "initiation" stage. I won't try a detailed critique. Again, in response to Gourley, B & Le stay firmly within their abstract model from BV. Not a "real event" explanation. Therefore "contradiction" the word used by M_T is correct.

2) The is irrelevant to" seems to come from my comment about BV where I said "...the "crush-down crush-up" concept as defined by BV is not relevant to WTC 9/11 collapses.

Could you confirm that such is the reference you had in mind? Before I commit a few (?? ) words.

If it was your reference you might note:
p) I was referring to 'the "crush-down crush-up" concept'; AND
q) Note that I have emphasised "as defined by BV" every time I have referred to that concept in recent posts. As used by BV "crush-down crush-up" is specifically focussed on the elastic behaviour and energies involved in a 1D homogeneous columns in line model. Some members here over the time this topic has been discussed have more loosely translated the "crush-down crush-up" concept and force fit it to descriptions of the real event. So my advice "take care". Apples and bananas.

Need any more??

 

[jaydeehess]

That was the reference, oz. Yes I see the specifics of your comment re: crush up/down.

Think your take on it is similar to MT's?

Then again, of course, he could illuminaye us all on his thoughts. Not that the likelihood is too good for that.

 

[ozeco41]

That was the reference, oz. Yes I see the specifics of your comment re: crush up/down.

OK - so we are clear on the key issue which raised that query.

Think your take on it is similar to MT's?

Actually M_T's OOS Model is a sub-set of mine and IMO of reality. And that is one of the key issues of confusion causing much of the ongoing angst in these recent discussions.

Let's see if I can explain:

IMNSHO what actually happened in the "progression stage" of the "Twins" collapses is this:
A) Material fell down the "tube of the open office spaces" shearing the floor joist connectors and leaving the outer perimeter unbraced in the "radial" (outwards) direction;
B) The outer perimeter fell over - breaking into various sized "sheets"; AND
C) Material - initially including integral parts of "Top Block" - fell down the core area and stripped the core beams off the columns - IMO directly analogous to the OOS floor shearing - similar mechanism similar reasoning.

Those three statements should be non-contentious. They are what I have posted over recent years under a label of "Three Mechanisms" or similar words. It is a total hypothesis in broad outline. And there are detailed issues which I can explain if necessary.

M_T's OOS Model is focussed on "A" and "B" - it does not address "C" so it is not a total hypothesis. And it is a sub set of mine so the answer to "Think your take on it is similar to MT's?" is yes - I agree with the two bits M_T claims - "A" and "B" - and add one more of my own "C". M_T and I differ slightly on scope of the hypothesis.

But scope is precisely where a lot of the confusion and angst of recent days posting comes from. Members opposing M_T, except for tfk and beachnut, all agree with "A" BUT most appear confused as to whether they are discussing part or all of the explanation for "progression".

Add to that "ill-defined scope" all the denials of the scope of applicability of Bazant and you have the technical basis for all the "talking at cross purposes" in recent posts. The parties are not all that far apart if the debunkers would drop the "truthers must always be wrong and we don't like M_T's style" nonsense - if M_T would say what he means and desist from JAQing/needling - and both sides focus on objective technical facts. Plus some debunkers are unclear or wrong on Bazant.

Many members do not "see" either of the scope issues. They are in their "blind spots". Since they cannot see it they don't see "what all the fuss is about".

And my several explanations seem to be falling into the "blind spots"...

"

WTF is ozeco talking about?"

Then again, of course, he could illuminaye us all on his thoughts. Not that the likelihood is too good for that.

My usual comment "Don't cease breathing in anticipation of seeing aeronautical exploits by members of the family suidae."

 

[Major_Tom]

Many posters seem to be suggesting I have never shared my own views or reviews of BZ, BV, BL, and BLGB. Just a few of the most recent comments reproduced:

(b) He refuses to make his own claims - instead he plays irritating "JAQing" - rather than state simply and explicitly that the various Bazant papers except B&Z are in conflict with the real event he asks other members for their view. Irritating to say the least.

2) I agree fully with where he is coming from on the two issues which I believe are central to the discussion BUT I do not want to make M_T's arguments for him when he is reluctant to do so himself.

Time for YOU to explain what YOUR take on the various Bazant papers is and let us discuss YOUR interpretations.

But that is merely a distraction. Its time for this discussion to move on. YOU do have something else to say don't you?

History says that "we" will not get Tom to stop playing his JAQing innuendo personal comments style. So ball in our court."

There are three options for this thread:
1) Get Major_Tom to make his own claims and support them - history says he won't.

Then again, of course, he could illuminaye us all on his thoughts. Not that the likelihood is too good for that.

Have you not noticed where my comments on these papers are located?



When I noticed how many posters initially responded to the model, I wrote quite clearly on page 2 of this thread:

CRUSH DOWN FOLLOWED BY CRUSH UP, 2006-2010, R. I. P.

BAZANT AND VERDURE EQUATIONS OF MOTION, EQS 12 AND 17, 2006-2010, R. I. P.


If we accept the ROOSD study as accurate, one logical consequence is that the claims in the papers BV and BL are incorrect.

On page 5 of the thread I explicitly state:

A summary of my questions concerning the Bazant papers asked thus far:


1) In BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs. Does he mean this literally?

2) Do you consider the equations of motion in BV, equations 12 and 17, to be accurate for WTC1 considering the information in the ROOSD study?

3) Does Dr Bazant believe crush down, then crush up applies literally to WTC1? (or as just a "limiting hypothetical case in which the structure is best able to resist collapse")

4) Are the findings in the OOS study consistent with the claims of crush down preceding crush up in BV and BL?

5) Where in the BLGB arguments is the possibility of a CD based on ROOSD, exploiting the natural weaknesses of the building with minimal explosives, addressed?

If it is not, is it not true that the the arguments in BLGB are largely irrelevant when considering this type of controlled demolition?

6) When Bazant makes the following statement in BL, what does he mean?:

"So it must be concluded that the simplifying hypothesis of
one-way crushing (i.e., of absence of simultaneous crush-up),
made in the original paper, was perfectly justified and caused
only an imperceptible difference in the results. The crush-up
simultaneous with the crush down is found to have advanced
into the overlying story by only 37 mm for the North Tower
and 26 mm for the South Tower. This means that the initial
crush-up phase terminates when the axial displacement of
columns is only about 10 times larger than their maximum
elastic deformation. Hence, simplifying the analysis by neglecting
the initial two-way crushing phase was correct and
accurate."

Is he applying this to WTC1, or to just a hypothetical extreme case?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

These questions were carefully chosen to expose fundamental weaknesses in Dr Bazant's papers. They also can help us understand the papers better. This is important because there are many false beliefs about what the papers say and do not say.



What we have seen in the first 5 pages of this thread is there are many misconceptions about the papers. In the future, an astute reader may want to ask those provide interpretations of what Dr Bazant "felt" or "intended" in the papers to back up their opinions with actual quotes from the (correct) papers. If they cannot, you should be very wary about what and who to "believe".

On page 11 of this thread I wrote reviews for each of the papers and linked to them in this post:

To make my views on each paper perfectly clear, I am posting a first draft of my review of each paper.

Review of Bazant and Zhou at
http://www.the911forum.freeforums.org/review-of-bazant-and-zhou-t375.html

Review of Bazant and Verdure at
http://www.the911forum.freeforums.org/review-of-bazant-and-verdure-t378.html

Review of Bazant, Le, Greening, Benson at
http://www.the911forum.freeforums.org/review-of-bazant-le-greening-benson-t379.html

Review of BL(BVReply) will be posted soon, but it follows the same line of argument that BV does.


Each review is just a first draft but I think each can already show what the papers actually prove and what they do not prove or address.

Many of these comments will probably not make some of you feel happy, but I believe each of my comments are true or I wouldn't post them. If anyone wishes to challenge any section or comment, please be specific. If anyone needs me to further address specific passages or issues, please ask.

When I watched how my comments and reviews were ignored I started an OP in this forum called 3 Bazant papers debunked

which was promptly merged into page 33 of the "applicability" thread and once again was basically ignored.



My reviews on the papers has been available through obvious links on my website and in this forum for 4 years and is even included as a section in my "book":


3.6: Bazant Misrepresentation of Collapse Progressions





How is it possible to comment on the contents of my "book" without noticing there is a section called "Bazant Misrepresentation of Collapse Progressions" right in the middle of it?

None of you managed to make it to Section 3?