OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[rwguinn]

Could you cite where Dr. Bazant uses that term?

As far as I can see you seem to think that the paper says the top stays intact all the way down then is crushed.

Hey-
I thin we should be grateful that the truthers are beginning to see that the collapse would propagate regardless of the initiation method. It is a step forward.
Now all they gotta do is come up with the "hushabomb" that was used in their scenario...

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Bazant relies on NIST's explanation for collapse initiation. Even if you believe that both NIST and Bazant are right, it's wrong to say Bazant's papers on their own prove controlled demolition wasn't necessary.

And how did he "rely" on NIST's explanation for collapse initiation. on or about 9/13/01?

or even march 2002 for that matter?

Mother of God, the truther said what??

As A W Smith has pointed out: This conspiracy peddler has simply made something up out of thin air.

Date Bazant & Zhou's "Simple Analysis" was published: March 2002
Year NIST report published: 2005
Date NIST was first instructed to conduct an investigation: Aug. 2002

No, Bazant doesn't rely on NIST's explanation. NIST wasn't even involved until later that year. All Bazant's work relies on is the severing of some columns and fires affecting others. And that's it. Everything else is nothing more than an application of engineering principles to the scenario he builds.

It helps to understand what's being criticized. Back on ignore the truther goes.

 

[bardamu]

The evidence proves the delusion of CD false.

Bazant claims that: "the recent allegations of controlled demolition are baseless", but where has he even tried to prove that fires could have triggered the collapse?

A little late to attempt to move the goalposts, Doncha think?

"If it did" is not the same as "It could have", and in any case saying "It could have" is not proving "it could have".

And how did he "rely" on NIST's explanation for collapse initiation. on or about 9/13/01?

or even march 2002 for that matter?

In 2008:

To explain the collapse, it was proposed (on September 13, 2001; Bazant 2001; Bazant and Zhou 2002) that viscoplastic buckling of heated and overloaded columns caused the top part of tower to fall through the height of at least one story, and then shown that the kinetic energy of the impact on the lower part must have exceeded the energy absorption capacity of the lower part by an order of magnitude. A meticulous investigation of unprecedented scope and detail, conducted by S. Shyam Sunder’s team at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST 2005), supports this explanation.

Where does Bazant prove that viscoplastic buckling caused the top part of the building to fall at least one storey?

No, Bazant doesn't rely on NIST's explanation. NIST wasn't even involved until later that year. All Bazant's work relies on is the severing of some columns and fires affecting others. And that's it. Everything else is nothing more than an application of engineering principles to the scenario he builds.

In other words, up to 2007 he relied on his own speculation, but now he has proof in the form of NIST's model.

 

[femr2]

It certainly would be a big bump for lil' femr2, who is unable to correctly answer a 8th grade physics question -- time and time again.

Is that the one where I told you the answer was:

It's around 1/1.76 to 0.5 * Fo

...and you replied with...

Wrong answer fake Physics fraud

The thread will break if F=Fo/2.

Took about 10 folk to try and get you to register that multiplying a number by 0.5 is the same as dividing it by 2. They all failed unfortunately. Oh, and the range I suggested is instantaneous load related Hope you have progressed since then.

NIST stop at initiation. Bazant et al start after initiation. The actual period of time during initiation requires further clarification.

 

[Reactor drone]

Carlitos says: "Please calculate the minimal explosives required, including their likely decibel levels. "

Wouldn't you need to know the probable targets first? Let's say we both agree the probable targets would be core columns. How can you even attempt an estimate if you cannot answer the following questions:

1) Were the core columns (CC) around the 98th floor box columns or H beams?
2) Each column section is about 36 ft long, spanning 3 floors. How were the columns connected to each other at that elevation? Were they welded, bolted or both?
3) Were the CC to CC connections for adjacent columns staggered relative to each other, or are the CC to CC connections for all 47 CCs at the exact same elevations?
4) If the connections for all 47 CCs were at the exact same elevations, on which floors are they located around the collapse initiation area.

I'm sure you will agree that blowing the weld of a box column is much louder than doing so for a H beam.

Why are we talking about blowing core columns here? Isn't your theory, a "ROOSD" using minimal explosives, basically a pancake collapse theory involving separation of the floors from the columns?

Can you imagine if we were to find that all 47 CCs have bolted connections at the exact same elevation right through the 98th floor, where we all see collapse initiation begin?

So the questions above need to be answered before anyone can attempt to estimate decibel levels.

I know how to answer each of those questions, but I'd like to see you or others from this forum do it first. Some of you may claim to have looked into the matter previously and have ruled out CD based on your research. If you or others here cannot answer them, please let me know by indicating clearly that you do not know the answers.

I won't do your research for you. You claim to have studied the subject before arriving at a conclusion. R Mackey claims to rule out CD by diligent application of the scientific method.

Please tell me the nature and location of the CC connections around the 98th floor, the most likely target of an attack. They are hard questions so I don't judge anyone who cannot answer them. But if you cannot answer them, I doubt if you've seriously looked into the question at all.

You don't seem to have researched for yourself either, shouldn't you already know this before you try and present a theory about the towers collapse? You may also want to look into what connections you'd need to sever on the other tower as well, or is it your contention that only one tower was demolished (or is that two towers since you seem to have introduced WTC 7 into the argument?).

Carlitos, does the quote function in this forum allow a person to quote individual sentences within a post? If so, let me know how. Quotation marks " " have been a standard in literature for a long, long time. Let me know why quotation marks, found in pretty much any book, don't work for you and I'll try to adjust.

Quoting get the whole post with a handy little link at the top. You can then edit it to remove parts you don't need.

 

[femr2]

Isn't your theory, a "ROOSD" using minimal explosives, basically a pancake collapse theory involving separation of the floors from the columns?

The ROOSD study does not state that ROOSD itself requires *explosives*. It separates initiation from propogation. It does not prove deliberate initiation (MIHOP), nor natural inititation.

You don't seem to have researched for yourself either, shouldn't you already know this before you try and present a theory about the towers collapse? You may also want to look into what connections you'd need to sever on the other tower as well, or is it your contention that only one tower was demolished (or is that two towers since you seem to have introduced WTC 7 into the argument?).

You should *research* the research of those you suggest have not researched. Too much research going on there, but suggest you spend some time at the911forum.

Quoting get the whole post with a handy little link at the top. You can then edit it to remove parts you don't need.

The quote function removes one side of the conversation. I quite understand why MT prefers to retain both sides manually.

 

[Reactor drone]

The ROOSD study does not state that ROOSD itself requires *explosives*. It separates initiation from propogation. It does not prove deliberate initiation (MIHOP), nor natural inititation.

Yet Major Tom brings up CD. Why mention it unless you have evidence or at least a theory?

In what way does his papers rule out a CD based on exploiting a ROOSD process?

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

I think you must agree that it is not. True?

Can anyone else find where Dr Bazant proves that this type of CD couldn't happen? Where he addresses it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If not, is it not true that the papers of Dr Bazant are largely irrelevent when considering this type of controlled demolition?

From that post I can only assume that he's developed a theory that involves "exploiting the natural weaknesses of the building with minimal explosives" and yet, when asked to elaborate, he seems to have no idea how much explosive would be needed, nor where it would be placed and seems to show no knowledge of the building structure in the relevant areas.

Basically, since his ROOSD theory, doesn't support his CD hypothesis any better than the Bazant studies all of this seems a rather pointless attempt to smear Bazant's papers.

 

[Carll68]

Is that the one where I told you the answer was:

It's around 1/1.76 to 0.5 * Fo

...and you replied with...

Wrong answer fake Physics fraud

The thread will break if F=Fo/2.

Took about 10 folk to try and get you to register that multiplying a number by 0.5 is the same as dividing it by 2. They all failed unfortunately. Oh, and the range I suggested is instantaneous load related Hope you have progressed since then.

NIST stop at initiation. Bazant et al start after initiation. The actual period of time during initiation requires further clarification.

Nope.

It was the one where you botched the answer.

I don't suppose you would like me to ask it again, here, in from of everyone, would you?

Just say the word fraud.....

How is that collapse model coming along? The one were you put all the energy into an energy sink that crushes the concrete? What's that? It is another fraud by you? Shocking!

Remember how you made a big deal about WTC7 being in free fall for a few seconds...and you could not, for the life of you, figure out why it was? You thought the only way would be if it was a CD!

Go on now loon...tell everyone here about your fantasy of free-fall.

Shall we commence the physics questions?

 

[femr2]

Yet Major Tom brings up CD. Why mention it unless you have evidence or at least a theory?

So your issue is that you don't think the subject should be mentioned at all then ? The study suggests that ROOSD itself can be self-sustaining (though some numbers are still to be crunched), and highlights possible factors which *could* result in ROOSD following deliberate initiation. The study is not for a single audience. One purpose is to stop some of the claims of floor-bt-floor explosives from other *camps*. You folk seem to have a problem with mentioning that CD is not ruled out. It's not ruled in. Get over it, would be my opinion. You don't think that the suggested MIHOP initiation mechanisms are valid ? Fine. Prove they are invalid. Or ignore that, and simply focus on the ROOSD mechanism itself. There's still some number crunching to do to end up with a model which mathematically matches observables, such as ~14.6s propogation to ground time with terminal velocity reached after ~4s. Perhaps to much focus on *debunking* habits to see the wood from the trees ?

From that post I can only assume that he's developed a theory that involves "exploiting the natural weaknesses of the building with minimal explosives" and yet, when asked to elaborate, he seems to have no idea how much explosive would be needed, nor where it would be placed and seems to show no knowledge of the building structure in the relevant areas.

No, that's your assumption and inference. Once basic agreement on some fundamental factors can be reached, am sure there's no problem with widening the goalposts.

There are problems with some of the Bazant et al content, and folk here are very resistant to making that clear. Time for some progression methinks.

Basically, since his ROOSD theory, doesn't support his CD hypothesis any better than the Bazant studies all of this seems a rather pointless attempt to smear Bazant's papers.

1) What CD hypothesis ?
2) ROOSD is the most probable propogation mechanism post-initiation. Doesn't deal with initiation. Doesn't deal with the core.
3) Bazant et al is full of issues, and they should be clearly understood. Application of *equations of motion* to ROOSD would be quite productive.
4) Smear ? No. Clarify the scope, limitation and inaplicability to certain aspects. Surely you are not one of those folk that would take the Bazant model versions literally ? To do so would be wrong. The mechanisms do not match observables.

 

[femr2]

Nope.

It was the one where you botched the answer.

I have the entire conversation. Quite happy to quote verbose sections of it to you if you like. lol. Your direct (and very stupid) response to my stated answer to your *question* was posted above. I know *0.5 and /2 can be confusing, but please try to focus on the thread in question, yeah ?

I don't suppose you would like me to ask it again, here, in from of everyone, would you?

Do what you like. Mods might consider it a derail though.

Just say the word fraud.....

Which word ? Joker ?

How is that collapse model coming along? The one were you put all the energy into an energy sink that crushes the concrete? What's that? It is another fraud by you? Shocking!

Wow. Never did understand the meaning of the word *variable* did you.

It's here if you want it...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/load/3-1-0-9
Numerous methods for setting what volume and scale of concrete crush. Always was. Can you get anything right ?

Remember how you made a big deal about WTC7 being in free fall for a few seconds...and you could not, for the life of you, figure out why it was? You thought the only way would be if it was a CD!

I reckon you should explain it But again, I think the Mods would consider your attempts to attack *the person* as a derail. Certainly would be considered so in more orderly arenas.

Go on now loon...tell everyone here about your fantasy of free-fall.

Are you suggesting there was NOT freefall during the descent of WTC 7 ?

Shall we commence the physics questions?

Do what you like, but, ooh, again, I reckon you'll be spanked for derailing. You have a wee bit of a problem methinks. Perhaps some anger management would be productive for you ?

I suggest that if you wish to vent your frustrations further, you start a new thread. I may pop in, may not.

 

[T.A.M.]

What exactly is the problem with you folk ?

We have nowt of Bazant et al that deals with initiation, and yet we have folk like Mackey stating implicitly that the papers of Bazant et al prove no CD.

Absolutely ridiculous. CC creep anyone ?

If you only had the courage to be clear it would be a lot less painful to watch.

So you think there is no other evidence of CD. That's fine, and your opinion.

Bazant et al do NOT in ANY way disprove CD. More towards natural collapse than the major ity of what is termed the *truth movement*, sure.

ROOSD does not prove nor disprove CD.

Banal inference is laughable.

Flame on, but get a grip. Pathetic.

Evidence does not care about opinion, so the above bolded statement is simply stupid. There either is evidence, or there is not. There is no "opinion" on whether there is evidence or not, provided both sides use the same definition for what constitutes as evidence. I fear there in lies the problem. See debunkers here at JREF do not consider speculation, coincidence, and opinion as evidence...truthers do.

As for the rest of your preschool tirade, mommy still loves you, so take your toys and stomp off the schoolyard and go home if you like.
TAM

 

[femr2]

As for the rest of your preschool tirade

Reckon it would be a good idea to apply your impecabale standards to poor ol' Carly above. I know there'll always be that double-standard thing, but, really

 

[Carll68]

I have the entire conversation. Quite happy to quote verbose sections of it to you if you like. lol. Your direct (and very stupid) response to my stated answer to your *question* was posted above. I know *0.5 and /2 can be confusing, but please try to focus on the thread in question, yeah ?

Oh, it is not confusing at all. Maybe to you? In fact, it is rudimentary. Now, feel free to post up whatever garbage you want. Oh, wait, aren't you soon going to accuse me of a derail??!


Do what you like. Mods might consider it a derail though.

Told Ya. Irony of tin foil twoofers


Which word ? Joker ?

I assume I have to explain this to you as well. Do you wish to play Q & A with physics questions fraud? After all, you claim to be the expert.


Wow. Never did understand the meaning of the word *variable* did you.

Sure I do. What makes you think I do not. By all means, be specific

It's here if you want it...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/load/3-1-0-9
Numerous methods for setting what volume and scale of concrete crush. Always was. Can you get anything right ?

Oh, I can, and quite often do. I call into question why you can't. Why do you have the model crushing all the concrete again? Oh yeah, that is the only way it would fit your delusions.


I reckon you should explain it But again, I think the Mods would consider your attempts to attack *the person* as a derail. Certainly would be considered so in more orderly arenas.


Are you suggesting there was NOT freefall during the descent of WTC 7 ?

Only a true uneducated lunatic would derive this from my post. Please, point me to where this was ever stated, or even alluded to. Don't run fraud


Do what you like, but, ooh, again, I reckon you'll be spanked for derailing. You have a wee bit of a problem methinks. Perhaps some anger management would be productive for you ?

I am sorry that no one cares what you THINK. No, I lied. I am not. In fact, I think nothing...either I know, or I don't know. How about you?

I suggest that if you wish to vent your frustrations further, you start a new thread. I may pop in, may not.

should I, You surely will run away as usual.

 

[T.A.M.]

Reckon it would be a good idea to apply your impecabale standards to poor ol' Carly above. I know there'll always be that double-standard thing, but, really

If he is behaving like a spoiled child then he should refrain. Sorry, I tend to focus my attention on posts from the "opposite side".

TAM

 

[femr2]

If he is behaving like a spoiled child then he should refrain. Sorry, I tend to focus my attention on posts from the "opposite side".

TAM

No worries.

Do think the ROOSD study is something that really should be seen as more of a *meeting in the middle* though.

I don't like the *truther/twoofer/nut job/...* monikers, but rather hoped the more general initial response would be more like...

I think we should be grateful that the truthers are beginning to see that the collapse would propagate regardless of the initiation method. It is a step forward.

...and progress into the nitty-gritty of refining the math, and perhaps later even having a serious look at the actual initiation mechanism.

As a simple...there's enough energy available...Bazant et al is fine by me, but as a model(s) of the real deal (which some do seem to be clinging to) the set of papers are not appropriate imo, and flaws and limited context should be agreed by all.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Bazant et al do NOT in ANY way disprove CD.

That's not really accurate. His and his colleagues work does disprove CD when it's taken in conjunction with the recovered steel from the fire/impact zones. And that's the point of citing Bazant: Not as stand-alone proof, but rather as one of the works that helps bind several lines of evidence into a cohesive narrative:

We know about the jets impacts for the obvious reasons. We know about the fires from multiple sources as well as the NIST simulations built on the testimonies and videos. Add those two together and we have a cause for collapse initiation. On top of that we can disprove the alternate explanations for how things started because steel from the initiation zones was recovered. They show clear signs of stress failure, and no signs of severing from explosives or thermite, ergo, no deliberate demolitions in the collapse initiation zones.

So we know that the damage and fires were what caused the initial failures and that demolitions were not. Because we know the collapses started naturally, we know the entire collapses all the way to conclusion were unassisted by intentional demolitions due to Bazant's work. He and his colleagues showed that all the collapses had to do was start, and both would continue until they reached the ground, regardless of the minituae of "crush up/down" or whether columns in the real world could never strike axially. He and the others proved that the momentum generated was enough to keep things going in a building designed like the Towers. No explosives outside the fire and impact zones would be necessary.

By virtue of showing that once the collapses started they would inevitably go all the way to the ground, Bazant et. al. did indeed disprove the use of intentional demolitions. They did so because it can be proven that demolitions weren't used to start the collapses, so the natural consequence of their work is that demolitions weren't used at all.

 

[femr2]

That's not really accurate.

I disagree.

His and his colleagues work does disprove CD when it's taken in conjunction with...

In conjunction with...is something totally different, and I was specific on the point.

Not as stand-alone proof

Exactly.

but rather as one of the works that helps bind several lines of evidence into a cohesive narrative:

Again, that's something totally out of context with my statement.

we have a cause for collapse initiation.

There is a theoretical suggestion of around 20 minutes of progressive CC creep, but obviously, no direct evidence. There are also quite severe discrepancies between the NIST initiation conclusions and observables.

no signs of severing from explosives or thermite, ergo, no deliberate demolitions in the collapse initiation zones.

I'm afraid that's not an exhaustive list of possible mechanisms imo. Perhaps after the deficiencies of Bazant et al's simplified mathematical models can be agreed upon, progression into alternative, or simply more accurate, initiation mechanisms can be, er, explored.

He and his colleagues showed that all the collapses had to do was start, and both would continue until they reached the ground, regardless of the minituae of "crush up/down" or whether columns in the real world could never strike axially.

I disagree. Not enough dimensions in the math to make such a statement of fact. Enough energy to do so, sure, but as I hope is made clear by the stark difference between the Bazant rigid cap scenario and the ROOSD model, the actual behaviour was far from a match to Bazant. All manner of chaotic events could have resulted in arrest at various points if certain aspects of Bazant simplifications were applied literally and missing dimensions were included.

He and the others proved that the momentum generated was enough to keep things going in a building designed like the Towers. No explosives outside the fire and impact zones would be necessary.

Again, confirming available energy doesn't directly imply behvaiour. It's perhaps not something you are interested in, but for me, making the distinction is critical.

Perhaps later a discussion of the bolted core column arrangements and potential implications can be progressed (and other observations), but for now, my previous post is where I think things should be focussed.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Again, that's something totally out of context with my statement.
.

IOW, like a typical truther, you disregard the totality of the evidence, and the unified story that it tells.

You're as bad as the CIT/pfffft boys.

How proud of that are ya?

 

[femr2]

IOW, like a typical truther, you disregard the totality of the evidence, and the unified story that it tells.

Not at all. That's like you saying 1+1=2 is wrong, because 1+1+2=4.

The question is not so much "was there energy to account for the difference between the building standing at t-5sec and the debris pile?" but rather "how does one account for this and that along the way?"

One step at a time.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Not at all. That's like you saying 1+1=2 is wrong, because 1+1+2=4.

Nope.

1+1 = 2.

What twoofs are trying to say, is that it doesn't disprove 9/3 = zomg!!!111!!11111!!!!!!!!