OOS Collapse Propagation Model
- Thread starter Major_Tom
- Start date
- Status
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
That's how I envision it after a few floors.
Universal to this particular style of construction perhaps. Concrete core, like the Windsor changes things, length of trusses changes things, compartmentalised building sections such as the Delft University building changes things, so many variables and so little data, basically three structures with a lot of video of the visible collapse. No video of the interior of collapsing buildings.
Really not a surprise that the literature on this type of collapse is sparse.
I've modified the ROOSD model to include a simple 5 step mathematical approach to ROOSD propagation.
The complete ROOSD model is described in the links below
....2.1: Progressive Floor Collapses in the WTC Towers
....2.2: General Global Characteristics of Collapses
....2.3: Mathematical Basis of ROOSD Propagation
I felt the addition of a mathematical approach was necessary because the only existing approaches to the collapse mechanics of WTC1 and 2 I could find contain a number of errors.
Do any of you have access to alternative approaches to the collapse mechanics so they can be compared with this approach for clarity and precision?
The one I am presenting seems to be the best and clearest effort on the subject I could find. For those who disagree, please provide a link to the one that you feel is best so the models can be directly compared.
The complete ROOSD model is described in the links below
....2.1: Progressive Floor Collapses in the WTC Towers
....2.2: General Global Characteristics of Collapses
....2.3: Mathematical Basis of ROOSD Propagation
I felt the addition of a mathematical approach was necessary because the only existing approaches to the collapse mechanics of WTC1 and 2 I could find contain a number of errors.
Do any of you have access to alternative approaches to the collapse mechanics so they can be compared with this approach for clarity and precision?
The one I am presenting seems to be the best and clearest effort on the subject I could find. For those who disagree, please provide a link to the one that you feel is best so the models can be directly compared.
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
I was surprised to read that you are now presenting a mathematical approach to ROOSD propagation - believing that you mean a mathematical model that describes your verbal ROOSD model. So I thumbed through long tedious pages, only to be left disappointed.
You should have written that you've "modified the
I would put it shorter and more readable:
- One paragraph to explain (with references) that crush front moved at constant speed after a short accelerated initial period
- For each existing model, one or two paragraphs where you locate and paraphrase prediction of collapse front acceleration
- Compare - one paragraph per model should suffice.
Feynman's example of mathematics is a very young boy playing with tiles. He also uses the example of girls talking about knitting socks. He states that mathematics is nothing but the discovery of pattern.
The complete ROOSD model is described in the links below
....2.1: Progressive Floor Collapses in the WTC Towers
....2.2: General Global Characteristics of Collapses
....2.3: Mathematical Basis of ROOSD Propagation
What is section 2.1 other than the discovery of pattern in the WTC1 and 2 collapse progression processes?
1) Observed Behavior of WTC1 Core
2) Observed Motion of WTC1, 2 Perimeter Walls
3) Observed Behavior of the Crush Fronts
4) Observation of core and perimeter columns within the rubble
5) Pieces of flooring remain intact and people survive at the base of WTC 1
6) Appearance at the base of each tower after collapse
What are these other than the discovery and mapping of patterns.
There is pattern to the core behavior that can be mapped.
There is pattern to the movement of the observed crush fronts.
There is pattern to the layout of rubble.
These patterns are knowable and can be mapped.
What is section 2.3 other than the discovery of more patterns?
Mathematical approach to the study of ROOSD propagation as a simple 5 step process:
Step 1: GAIN AN OVERALL CONCEPTUAL AND VISUAL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT ONE IS LOOKING AT
Step 2: RESEARCH AVAILABLE LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT OF FLOORS IMPACTING FLOORS
Step 3: MEASURE THE COLLAPSE PROPAGATION RATE AS ACCURATELY AND COMPLETELY AS POSSIBLE
Step 4: EXAMINE A VARIETY OF PHYSICS-BASED MATHEMATICAL APPROACHES TO THE COLLAPSE OF STACKED SYSTEMS
Step 5: COMPARE MODELS IN STEP 4 TO INFORMATION IN STEPS 1 - 3 to see which models could match propagation behavior or teach something about it.
Step 1 is nothing more than an understanding of sections 2.1 and 2.2.
Step 2 is a study of patterns within the available literature on floors impacting floors. It can give you some knowledge on the patterns that others have already discovered.
Step 3 maps the actual collapse front propagation rate. It is the first mapping ever made of the actual rates and accelerations witnessed.
Step 4 gives an astute reader the clearest understanding of the written history on this subject. You can understand the technical history of papers on this subject.
You do not have to live in the world of memes and mythology that these collections of posts represent:
Newtons Bit
R Mackey
Dave Rogers and Myriad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And for those who still need to cling to this imitated chain of thoughts, well, you are running from...something.
In them I smell fear. That is the only underlying explanation there is for people to remain there anymore.
The complete ROOSD model is described in the links below
....2.1: Progressive Floor Collapses in the WTC Towers
....2.2: General Global Characteristics of Collapses
....2.3: Mathematical Basis of ROOSD Propagation
What is section 2.1 other than the discovery of pattern in the WTC1 and 2 collapse progression processes?
1) Observed Behavior of WTC1 Core
2) Observed Motion of WTC1, 2 Perimeter Walls
3) Observed Behavior of the Crush Fronts
4) Observation of core and perimeter columns within the rubble
5) Pieces of flooring remain intact and people survive at the base of WTC 1
6) Appearance at the base of each tower after collapse
What are these other than the discovery and mapping of patterns.
There is pattern to the core behavior that can be mapped.
There is pattern to the movement of the observed crush fronts.
There is pattern to the layout of rubble.
These patterns are knowable and can be mapped.
What is section 2.3 other than the discovery of more patterns?
Mathematical approach to the study of ROOSD propagation as a simple 5 step process:
Step 1: GAIN AN OVERALL CONCEPTUAL AND VISUAL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT ONE IS LOOKING AT
Step 2: RESEARCH AVAILABLE LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT OF FLOORS IMPACTING FLOORS
Step 3: MEASURE THE COLLAPSE PROPAGATION RATE AS ACCURATELY AND COMPLETELY AS POSSIBLE
Step 4: EXAMINE A VARIETY OF PHYSICS-BASED MATHEMATICAL APPROACHES TO THE COLLAPSE OF STACKED SYSTEMS
Step 5: COMPARE MODELS IN STEP 4 TO INFORMATION IN STEPS 1 - 3 to see which models could match propagation behavior or teach something about it.
Step 1 is nothing more than an understanding of sections 2.1 and 2.2.
Step 2 is a study of patterns within the available literature on floors impacting floors. It can give you some knowledge on the patterns that others have already discovered.
Step 3 maps the actual collapse front propagation rate. It is the first mapping ever made of the actual rates and accelerations witnessed.
Step 4 gives an astute reader the clearest understanding of the written history on this subject. You can understand the technical history of papers on this subject.
You do not have to live in the world of memes and mythology that these collections of posts represent:
Newtons Bit
R Mackey
Dave Rogers and Myriad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And for those who still need to cling to this imitated chain of thoughts, well, you are running from...something.
In them I smell fear. That is the only underlying explanation there is for people to remain there anymore.
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Once again, long walls of pompus and tedious text that no one's ever gonna read or take serios, zero acknowledgement of well-meant criticism. I do discover a pattern here! Hey, Mr. Feynman, look! I am a mathematician! 
It still doesn't.
We'll see soon what it does present instead.
2.3 does NOT, as seems to have dawned on you, present a "Mathematical Basis of ROOSD Propagation" but instead some meta-thing. You now call it a "Mathematical approach to the study of ROOSD propagation" - the study being a different thing than the propagation. More precisely, you offer a "Mathematical approach to the study of other people's mathematical models ofROOSD WTC collapse propagation" (I scratched "ROOSD" and replaced with "WTC collapse" to account for those models that you may cover in 2.3 that don't put ROOSD into math formulas but some other mechanism).
So it seems I was right all along: Your headline for 2.3 is incorrect.
Just acknowledge the simple fact that your approach is not about ROOSD but about the assessment of other people's mathematical formulas todescribe the WTC collapses. It doen't hurt!
And for FSM's sake stop the condescending, tedious pompousness, you won't win any show at all that way!
Still there: The claim in the headline that chapter 2.3 presents a "Mathematical Basis of ROOSD Propagation".
It still doesn't.
We'll see soon what it does present instead.
I have no beef with section 2.1. In fact, I didn't even read it. You make it seem like the "Mathematical Basis of ROOSD Propagation" comes in section 2.3. If it comes on 2.1, why is the headline "Mathematical Basis of ROOSD Propagation" over 2.3 and not 2.1? Maybe you should change that then.
If you want to call it that, be my guest. But what are the patterns in 2.3 about? Let's see:
Ahh! I see what you did there!
2.3 does NOT, as seems to have dawned on you, present a "Mathematical Basis of ROOSD Propagation" but instead some meta-thing. You now call it a "Mathematical approach to the study of ROOSD propagation" - the study being a different thing than the propagation. More precisely, you offer a "Mathematical approach to the study of other people's mathematical models of
So it seems I was right all along: Your headline for 2.3 is incorrect.
Still not the topic of this thread or the post I initially responded to (your announcement of the supposed addition of a "mathematical approach to ROOSD").
Just acknowledge the simple fact that your approach is not about ROOSD but about the assessment of other people's mathematical formulas todescribe the WTC collapses. It doen't hurt!
And for FSM's sake stop the condescending, tedious pompousness, you won't win any show at all that way!
Yes.
A floor of the WTC can hold 29,000,000 pounds. The debris falling on the lower floors was more than 29,000,000 pounds, the WTC collapsed to the ground. Simple, and real - it is what happened on 911. Thus the BS of the "gravity collapse was an illusion" is debunked. Clear, precise.
Leslie Robertson understands the collapse mechanics way before anyone else who watched videos to come up with more BS than about psychology than collapse mechanics.
6: WTC Collapse Records Studied as Meme Replication
....6.1: Meme Replication in Technical Literature
....6.2: Meme Replication in Mass Media
....6.3: Meme Replication in Popular Culture
....6.4: John Q Public and the WTC Collapse Records
The evidence that the OOS progression mode is not well understood within technical literature, journalism, and popular culture is overwhelming.
The following memes are replicated throughout technical literature on the collapses:
Crush down, then crush up meme (BV eq 12 and 17 illustrated)
Upper block meme
Center of gravity meme
Column buckling meme
Memes involving the term 'freefall'
WTC1, 2 acceleration memes
Memes involving ejections
Symmetrical collapse memes
Not a single author of collapse progression mechanics listed in step 4 of the mathematical approach to ROOSD propagation was able to identify the specific progression modes of WTC1 and 2.
Bazant, Greening, Seffen, Cherepanov, Eagar, Musso, Pesce... not one of them was able to identify the actual collapse mode. James Quintiere wasn't aware of it when asked. David Benson did know about it. The same memes appear in research papers and PhD dissertations on progressive collapse when referencing the WTC towers.
Your own forum contains numerous examples of misrepresentations of both the Bazant papers BV, BL, and BLGB and the collapse mode in this very thread. People posting along side you are directly quoted misrepresenting the collapse modes of WTC1 and 2.
This subject can be systematically studied and the information necessary to do this is available in part 6 of my book, in the links given above.
Your denial of this recorded reality, and therefore your underlying fear of accepting it, is blatant and palpable. There is simply no excuse for not knowing this information any more. And the only remaining explanation for continuing to deny it is fear.
....6.1: Meme Replication in Technical Literature
....6.2: Meme Replication in Mass Media
....6.3: Meme Replication in Popular Culture
....6.4: John Q Public and the WTC Collapse Records
The evidence that the OOS progression mode is not well understood within technical literature, journalism, and popular culture is overwhelming.
The following memes are replicated throughout technical literature on the collapses:
Crush down, then crush up meme (BV eq 12 and 17 illustrated)
Upper block meme
Center of gravity meme
Column buckling meme
Memes involving the term 'freefall'
WTC1, 2 acceleration memes
Memes involving ejections
Symmetrical collapse memes
Not a single author of collapse progression mechanics listed in step 4 of the mathematical approach to ROOSD propagation was able to identify the specific progression modes of WTC1 and 2.
Bazant, Greening, Seffen, Cherepanov, Eagar, Musso, Pesce... not one of them was able to identify the actual collapse mode. James Quintiere wasn't aware of it when asked. David Benson did know about it. The same memes appear in research papers and PhD dissertations on progressive collapse when referencing the WTC towers.
Your own forum contains numerous examples of misrepresentations of both the Bazant papers BV, BL, and BLGB and the collapse mode in this very thread. People posting along side you are directly quoted misrepresenting the collapse modes of WTC1 and 2.
This subject can be systematically studied and the information necessary to do this is available in part 6 of my book, in the links given above.
Your denial of this recorded reality, and therefore your underlying fear of accepting it, is blatant and palpable. There is simply no excuse for not knowing this information any more. And the only remaining explanation for continuing to deny it is fear.
Last edited:
This exposes ignorance of engineering model, physics models and appears to be a contempt for science. The "book" meme...
It seems to me that the vast majority of posters on this forum seem to think that the explanations given are sufficiently accurate and getting it correct and walking back some of their positions is unimportant. Global collapse works for them and so anything which looks AT the mechanism and details of the *global collapse* mechanism is a waste of time. For whatever reason this does not interest them and they ridicule those who see some relevance to further examination. ROOSD seems to make sense to me and I don't understand the hostility.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Major_Tom makes it abundantly clear that he is not interested in discussiong ROODS. What is there to discuss? I think we all accept that his ROOSD (basically a verbal description backed up by documentary evidence) is an apt description of what actually happened.
Major_Tom makes it clear that his main intention is to condescend on individual posters' past opinions. Whenever he makes a technical and on-topic claim, such as the claim that a new section in his book presents a "mathematical approach to ROOSD", and I respond to it, for example by pointing out that this section does NOT present such a model but instead some approach to judging other models, he totally ignores all that I write, and tries to turn this into a debate about what I said at some point in the past.
His stubborn insistence on derailing his own topic and personalizing the thread, together with the pompous, tedious, condescending style, is the reason I feel hostile towards him.
He makes it abundandly clear that he wants to see me, and Newtons Bit, and even posters that don't come here anymore down on our knees confessing our sins, throwing ashes on our heads, before moving on.
And you wonder why the hostility?
I suppose those who feel they are attacked respond in kind... but that is perhaps almost as bad. I find the ad homs absurd.
It appears to me that Tom has presented a theme which is about how the collapses were botched for years and there was an absence of critical thinking and a sort of follow the herd mentality from people who should have been smarter. I was not involved in the debate/discussion at all until late 2009. I simply never looked closely and basically took the two positions... CD and non CD on face value. It appears that the CD position has no merit at all and the non CD explanations were essentially off the mark. That's pretty interesting considering all the intelligent people weighing in.
I don't know if it's important for mea culpas and it's not very important to harangue people who got it wrong. The record speaks for itself. What is disappointing to see is the fact that the discussion has stalled and no serious study / discussion / debate is taking place about the initiation phase from plane strike to top drop. It also appears to me that Tom's approach was to turn careful observations in a hypothesis and not set off with some theoretical mathematical approach a la Mr Bz et al. Conceptually that seems to me to make sense... describe what you see and THEN do the math, I suppose. To me the technical explanations for the ROOSD process are all settled physics and engineering with perhaps a fog about how the concrete was so completely pulverized with is counter intuitive. Truthers go on and on about no recognizable telephones or PCs but that doesn't surprise me. My intuition say such things would be crushed to tiny unrecognizable bits in the midst of a collapse of hundred of thousands of tons.... and massive steel members would survive largely intact. I think materials science and physics/mechanics confirms this.
The part which confounds truthers and is not well explained by the official story is how the heat was able to disintegrate the structure and cause the tops to drop. It is know that heat does degrade materials, distort them and so forth. But how much and where and what materials did what to cause the top to drop is where we need more clarity in my opinion. I'd like to see discussion about that. But perhaps this is less knowable from observations since we can't SEE heat and we can't see INSIDE the tops during the post plane strike period. It's like trying to diagnose a patient without xray, cat scans, MRIs, and blood work for example and just looking at them. And this is where theoretical models may have to suffice.
Maybe.
It appears to me that Tom has presented a theme which is about how the collapses were botched for years and there was an absence of critical thinking and a sort of follow the herd mentality from people who should have been smarter. I was not involved in the debate/discussion at all until late 2009. I simply never looked closely and basically took the two positions... CD and non CD on face value. It appears that the CD position has no merit at all and the non CD explanations were essentially off the mark. That's pretty interesting considering all the intelligent people weighing in.
I don't know if it's important for mea culpas and it's not very important to harangue people who got it wrong. The record speaks for itself. What is disappointing to see is the fact that the discussion has stalled and no serious study / discussion / debate is taking place about the initiation phase from plane strike to top drop. It also appears to me that Tom's approach was to turn careful observations in a hypothesis and not set off with some theoretical mathematical approach a la Mr Bz et al. Conceptually that seems to me to make sense... describe what you see and THEN do the math, I suppose. To me the technical explanations for the ROOSD process are all settled physics and engineering with perhaps a fog about how the concrete was so completely pulverized with is counter intuitive. Truthers go on and on about no recognizable telephones or PCs but that doesn't surprise me. My intuition say such things would be crushed to tiny unrecognizable bits in the midst of a collapse of hundred of thousands of tons.... and massive steel members would survive largely intact. I think materials science and physics/mechanics confirms this.
The part which confounds truthers and is not well explained by the official story is how the heat was able to disintegrate the structure and cause the tops to drop. It is know that heat does degrade materials, distort them and so forth. But how much and where and what materials did what to cause the top to drop is where we need more clarity in my opinion. I'd like to see discussion about that. But perhaps this is less knowable from observations since we can't SEE heat and we can't see INSIDE the tops during the post plane strike period. It's like trying to diagnose a patient without xray, cat scans, MRIs, and blood work for example and just looking at them. And this is where theoretical models may have to suffice.
Maybe.
The "book"meme, then the BS meme
Last edited:
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
And Major_Tom is still linking to things that myself, Myriad, Dave Rogers and R.Mackey stated at the beginning of the thread, without explaining how we were wrong and acts like it is earth-shattering information. Of course, it would be massive feat for him to do so, as our statements are, in general, correct.
It is truly bizarre.
It is truly bizarre.
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Beachy has defended a math formula??
See, Sander, what I mean? According to M-T, this thread is really ABOUT what I, what beachnut, what Newtons Bit supposedly thought 4+ years ago.
Sander, are you able to put into words for me what Major_Tom's objective is within this thread? So that we can gauge whether or not any posts here (mine, yours, his...) further that objective?
M_T has variously hinted that he considers the forum formlerly known as JREF a laboratory, and you and I are his white mice.
We are not a laboratory. We are a community. We are not mice, we are humans. We have passions and compassion. We sometimes get angry at each other, rejoice when we achieve something, we struggle passionately, we cuss and we praise.
M_T does none of that. He does not communicte, he does not reply, he does not reveal his emotions, if he has any. He staunchly rejects being part of this community.
He treats us as objects, not as subjects.
That's why he earns his bad standing.
- Status