OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[DGM]

Saturday AM 0827 Kilo - I'm carrying a handicap - two grandsons keeping me occupied.

6:31 pm, Friday and I'm watching the granddaughter........

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Your loyalty to Benson noted.

I'll rank what actually happened over academic postulations of what should have haopend but didn't actually occur any day.

I would need a very good argument to persuade me that the clear daytime sky is not blue when looking out the window the evidence of blueness is right there in front of me.


*STOP right there. If observation shows it never formed THEN;
Whether or not it was M_T's observation is irrelevant. Please don't engage in the JREF trick of claiming that something is correct when "they" see it BUT wrong when M_T, femr2, ozeco41 says it.
THEN - if it was observed - the "missing something" doesn't follow. So you had better be specific as to what you are trying to assert,

..and please!! No truther logic!! IF you have a relevant counter claim then make it. BUT don't attack a coherent overall argument with bits of out of context anomalies.

My loyalty is too Sir Newton, not to Benson, everything falls at the same speed, unless air drag or other resistance slows it.

That principal of physics is what should account for the Homogeneous mass formation.

 

[ozeco41]

My loyalty is too Sir Newton, not to Benson, everything falls at the same speed, unless air drag or other resistance slows it.

Understood - couldn't resist. BUT the basic physics is not in dispute. The difference is what it is applied to - EITHER what happened or what didn't.

That principal of physics is what should account for the Homogeneous mass formation.

If there was such an animal. The discussion was about why there wasn't - not what physics would apply if there was.

And the protocol is "Sir Isaac" - the honorific attaches to the given name - "Christian name" as it would have been called in his day.

If thou hadst been educated as a contemporary of him thou wouldst have been familiar with the protocol.

Despite the "41" I'm not quite old enough.

 

[JSanderO]

That principal of physics is what should account for the Homogeneous mass formation.

Who says? There was a "destruction" of the floor slabs and other superimposed live and dead loads... a bit was "shed" and the rest was ground to smaller and smaller bits but homogeneous it hardly was.

No?

 

[JSanderO]

Because "gotcha" is more important?

Funny, I never read any of the Bazant papers after the first.

Has MT actually supported his claim of a cover-up of design error?

Where is this "claim" made?

To assert that the ROOSD mechanism is an attribute of the "design" does not make it an error in design.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Who says? There was a "destruction" of the floor slabs and other superimposed live and dead loads... a bit was "shed" and the rest was ground to smaller and smaller bits but homogeneous it hardly was.

No?

The homogeneous mass should have formed under the top block, overloaded the floors and core ahead of the top block, and prevented early crush up.

At least that is what the physics say should have happened but didn't, happen.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Where is this "claim" made?

To assert that the ROOSD mechanism is an attribute of the "design" does not make it an error in design.

Actually MT himself debunks that Claim, the buildings fell slower than they should have in ROOSD, a strong sturdy building is indicated.

 

[JSanderO]

Actually MT himself debunks that Claim, the buildings fell slower than they should have in ROOSD, a strong sturdy building is indicated.

Who said what speed the collapse should progress in "ROOSD"

I don't even think there is a accurate "time of collapse" for a number of reasons.

For example... take tower 1...

How long did the collapse take?
When did the clock start? begining of top drop of from the time when the bottom section begins to "disappear" at its top?
When did it end? You can't see it because the site was completely obscurred by a huge dust cloud.
Sound? Kindly explain that one.
Siesmic? Kindly explain that one.

 

[DGM]

Where is this "claim" made?

To assert that the ROOSD mechanism is an attribute of the "design" does not make it an error in design.

It was only about two weeks ago in this forum. I'm not going to take the time to look it up right now (too much going on at home) but I called him out on it right away. He has not responded.

 

[JSanderO]

It was only about two weeks ago in this forum. I'm not going to take the time to look it up right now (too much going on at home) but I called him out on it right away. He has not responded.

If one could determine for certain that a grid design would not go global and completely collapse... ie destruction might be confined to a single or a few bays.... one MIGHT make the statement that the LERA design was "flawed".

Would you agree with this statement?

 

[JSanderO]

The homogeneous mass should have formed under the top block, overloaded the floors and core ahead of the top block, and prevented early crush up.

At least that is what the physics say should have happened but didn't, happen.

Color me stupid.... are you saying that a bunch of floors from the top section could drop on to the lower section and cause ROOSD and the top would not collapse and be "crushed"? What happens to the floors above your "homogeneous mass" in your mind?

 

[DGM]

If one could determine for certain that a grid design would not go global and completely collapse... ie destruction might be confined to a single or a few bays.... one MIGHT make the statement that the LERA design was "flawed".

Would you agree with this statement?

Sure, only if design considerations were not compromised by unexpected circumstance.

Would the collapse of the Empire State building be a design flaw if it was hit by a meteor?

Where is the line drawn?

WTC 1, 2 and 7 collapsed because they were subjected to conditions far outside of their design criteria. Do you agree with this statement?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Who said what speed the collapse should progress in "ROOSD"

I don't even think there is a accurate "time of collapse" for a number of reasons.

For example... take tower 1...

How long did the collapse take?
When did the clock start? begining of top drop of from the time when the bottom section begins to "disappear" at its top?
When did it end? You can't see it because the site was completely obscurred by a huge dust cloud.
Sound? Kindly explain that one.
Siesmic? Kindly explain that one.

ROOSD presents less energy as resistance to prevent crushing, so it should be faster than column crush down.

First detectable movement of the core.

It ended with last vibration in the seismic data.

Column crush down the most resistant collapse possible gave the correct
Collapse time.
ROOSD is much weaker mechanism of collapses it has to fail faster.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Color me stupid.... are you saying that a bunch of floors from the top section could drop on to the lower section and cause ROOSD and the top would not collapse and be "crushed"? What happens to the floors above your "homogeneous mass" in your mind?

The floors would drop with the top block, as long as it was shielded by the Homogeneous
Mass. ROOSD is basicly failure of formation of the Homogeneous mass.

 

[Major_Tom]

I did not follow these discussions in on this or other forums and I have no intention of going back and reading them and determining whether/that some big mouths spout pretty lame things.

That is not necessary.

A cursory reading of Tom's quotes seem to reveal that some of the vocal "experts" were off.

Yes, but more than some.

Why? I haven't a clue. It seems that there was some sort of mental disconnect from what can be seen and what they conceptualize about the event.

That is exactly how it seems. This is happening within many subcultures at the same time. It happened in the NIST subculture. It happened in the subculture of engineering journals. It happened in the subculture of AE911T and STJ911. And it is happening in the JREF/911 subculture, too. In fact, it is happening in this thread, even on this page of the thread.

Most of them are gone from the discussion leaving rubbish in their wake.

That is an excellent and very observant point.

That is exactly what I have experienced for as long as I have studied this subject. They produce false and deceptive representations, then they go away leaving garbage in their wake.

Most importantly, they never take responsibility for the garbage they leave behind.

That seems clear. Why? That's a separate question.

It is a key question. Why don't they simply clean up their mess?

Why let some sort of false technical narrative remain?

So in the end of the day, you are asking the same question I am.

It does seem to make people who remain in the discussion act weird, mean spirited and childish.

I would say it makes them bat $@&% crazy. I think it borders on criminal activity.

I suppose this is how history is written.... lots of BS told and sold to be who buy it hook line and sinker.

In this case, they crap on the generation which follows their own. They leave them a mess.

 

[Major_Tom]

I don't know what Tom's motive is.

i think you do. You stated it perfectly in that last set of comments I quoted.

He SEEMS to be concerned that there were some bone headed things said which were and continue to be accepted as "correct" and are the "conventional wisdom" and he apparently wants to ... correct the misconceptions and have those who perpetuated them in the past and continue to do so today to "eat crow"

Not that. I care about the living, not those already mentally dead, trapped in their fixed memes.

I do not post here to 'chat' or for the mental stimulation. I document the crazy and try to provide a resource for those who are looking for more than a cartoon history of the collapse events. The collapse events are in the past, but the stupidity and false representations are very much in the present. There is a way to 'disabuse' oneself and others of the mess that various perceived authority figures are leaving in their wake. It is an incredible learning opportunity, to see how powerful empty memes can be. To see how history is actually written.

There are many people down wind from this insanity. They deserve better than what they were given. This topic is very much of the future, not just the past.

 

[ozeco41]

Where is this "claim" made?

To assert that the ROOSD mechanism is an attribute of the "design" does not make it an error in design.

It was only about two weeks ago in this forum. I'm not going to take the time to look it up right now (too much going on at home) but I called him out on it right away. He has not responded.

Try this:

Correct. A highly specific collapse progression mode for a unique type of structural design...

(for which no one has taken any responsibility or admitted to any flaw or vulnerability in the design).

Sander you have expressed concern over much the same theme.

 

[ozeco41]

I did not follow these discussions in on this or other forums and I have no intention of going back and reading them and determining whether/that some big mouths spout pretty lame things.

That is not necessary.

Then why comment Sander if you can add nothing?

A cursory reading of Tom's quotes seem to reveal that some of the vocal "experts" were off.

Yes, but more than some.

Misleading Sander. I've been identifying and explaining the same type of errors more often and better supported since at least mid 2010. When have you ever seen M_Tom state a claim and explain it? Other than JAQing questions as he is trying now. Why imply that M_Tom is the only one to raise the issues when others have done a better job?

That said I agree with M_T's comment "more than some" - provided it is stripped of the false generalisations that he thrives on. Just read this thread.

Why? I haven't a clue. It seems that there was some sort of mental disconnect from what can be seen and what they conceptualize about the event.

That is exactly how it seems. This is happening within many subcultures at the same time. It happened in thhe NIST subculture. It happened in the subculture of engineering journals. It happened in the subculture of AE911T and STJ911. And it is happening in the JREF/911 subculture, too. In fact, it is happening in this thread, even on this page of the thread.

1) The continuing gross over claims expressed in hyperbole will never win either of you the argument, the understanding you claim to need OR respect from those members you persist in insulting.
2) If both of you are more concerned about the issues of behavioural psychology why not drop the confusing overlay of pretence that your concern is technical?

[More of the same sort of material omitted.]

So in the end of the day, you are asking the same question I am.

Time to stop asking the questions where you have nothing to offer and demand that other members do the research.

Tell us what you claim is WRONG.

Tell us what you think is RIGHT;

..and be prepared to back BOTH of them with reasoned arguments.

And drop the silly hyperbole unless you are prepared to reason your case:

I would say it makes them bat $@&% crazy. I think it borders on criminal activity.

Don't be bleeding ridiculous. Since when was publishing professional papers OR taking part in discussions on the Internet a criminal activity. Get real.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Color me stupid.... are you saying that a bunch of floors from the top section could drop on to the lower section and cause ROOSD and the top would not collapse and be "crushed"? What happens to the floors above your "homogeneous mass" in your mind?

This might enlighten you, it's physics,

The fact that the crush-up of entire stories cannot occur simultaneously with the crush-down
is demonstrated by the condition of dynamic equilibrium of compacted layer B, along with an
estimate of the inertia force of this layer due to vertical deceleration or acceleration; see Eq.
10 and Fig. 2(f) of Baˇzant and Verdure (2007). This previous demonstration, however, was
only approximate since it did not take into account the variation of crushing forces Fc and F
0
c
during the collapse of a story. An accurate analysis of simultaneous (deterministic) crush-up
and crush-down is reported in Baˇzant and Le (2008) and is reviewed in the Appendix, where
the differential equations and the initial conditions for a two-way crush are formulated. It is
found that, immediately after the first critical story collapses, crush fronts will propagate both
downwards and upwards. However, the crush-up front will advance into the overlying story
only by about 1% of its original height h and then stop. Consequently, the effect of the initial
two-way crush is imperceptible and the hypothesis that the crush-down and crush-up cannot
occur simultaneously is almost exact.
The aforementioned distance of initial crush-up would be larger if the column cross sections
changed discontinuously right below or right above the first collapsed story. However, this does
not appear to be the case. A sudden change of column cross section after the crush-down front
has advanced by more than a few stories would not produce crush-up because the compacted
layer B has already become quite massive and acquired a significant kinetic energy.
As an improvement over previous studies, we take into account the fact that a variation of
the initial mass density of stories causes the compaction ratio λ(z) to be variable. Consequently,
the distribution of velocity v(z) throughout the compacted layer B in the crush-down phase is
non-uniform. The equation of motion for the upper part of tower (parts C and B together)
during crush-down may be written as
d
dt
(Z z(t)
0
µ(S) ˙s(S)dS
)
− g
Z z(t)
0
µ(S)dS = −Fc(z, z˙) (1)

MT and DBB, were speaking different languages, each not understanding the other, Benson was talking physics, M T was talking real observation.
Like a German and an Italian arguing each in his own language, and neither understanding
The other.

 

[ozeco41]

This might enlighten you, it's physics,

It's not - it is physics looking gobbledegook from a person who does not know what he is describing.

MT and DBB, were speaking different languages, each not understanding the other, Benson was talking physics, M T was talking real observation.

I reject your assertion that Benson's material falsifies the real event.

Like a German and an Italian arguing each in his own language, and neither understanding The other.

False analogy. The error is not in language. It is that one talks of the real event whilst the other is describing a fantasy. I also reject your assertion that fantasy overrules reality.
Neither of those assertions should require any proof but...if anyone insists...