OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[ozeco41]

Alternatively, you might have lied. But I have complete trust that you don't.

Thanks Oystein. I have not the slightest doubt about your honesty either. In fact I doubt that any of those currently posting are deliberately being untruthful. Everyone note that.

Some posts back Oystein you said IIRC that you have an interest in the debate meta process - excuse me if I don't check the exact quote. At that meta-level of "WTF are we discussing?" (Remember "alligators or swamps" ) my primary interest is in reaching shared understanding of the base technical facts of the WTC Twin Towers collapses and the relationship of those technical facts to what Prof Bazant actually published. My secondary interest is procedural - "meta process" - that we should follow the accepted protocols of discussion.

But we are bogged down in arguing about nit pick details of members statements.

Can you and I start from zero base? Either I state a claim and you address it OR you state the claim and I address it?

This is where I would come from - note the two options:

So I would prefer our discussion to "start from the very beginning"¹ BUT the current sticking point is a bit down the track. Put simply it goes to the assertion I have made many times:

"The later papers by Bazant et al are wrong where they apply 1D simplification models to the WTC real event". ²
I stand by that assertion and am prepared to support it in reasoned argument.

The objections to that assertion come in two forms (a) outright denial OR (b) claims that 1D can be a sufficiently valid approximation. I am prepared to consider (b) "sufficiently valid approximation" if it is ever supported by reasoned argument. I know of no such argument.

I caution that I don't think the "down the track" objective of 2 can be reached efficiently by reasoned argument without "starting from the very beginning" - i.e 1 - because the logical foundations underpinning the later papers lie in the Stage 1 issues of or arising from B&Z.

The problem really is that you completely and utterly fail to address MY reasoning. I think you don't understand at all what I have been writing; you seem to be entirely blind to my arguments.

What I've suggested should avoid that situation.

I have no better explanation for why you so egregiously misstated my argument.

So we won't need that sort of comment.

Nothing could be further from the truth.
I told you explicitly that I am neither interested nor able to discuss the BV paper for I never really read it. See, you absolutely, completely, misread, misunderstand, misrepresent what I have been discussing.

Should all be moot if we start from zero base.

Your claim or mine?

Do you want to bypass the "Stage #1" stuff - most people seem to accept these taken one at a time in debate but are reluctant to explicitly agree when they are gathered in one place:

Fact #1a Bazant identified that the real collapse mechanism was complicated and chose a simpler model which was valid for a "limit case argument";

Fact #1b Bazant clearly distinguished the two different mechanisms - the more complicated real event and the simpler version supporting a "limit case" argument;

Fact #1c Bazant's "limit case" argument was conceptually valid, it has not been successfully challenged and he did not confuse the two mechanisms.

Fact #2 Discussion of WTC collapses should not use or rely on confusion of any issues of fact including the facts derived from Bazant's work.

Fact #3 - The progression collapse stage for WTC1 and WTC2 was dominated by a mechanism in which material falling down the office space tube stripped floors leaving perimeter columns to fall away.

Fact #4 The real event collapse described by Major_Tom in the link from the OP AND restated as Fact #3 is a different mechanism to the column crushing model of the limit case argument.

Fact #5 Reaffirms that the two mechanisms are different - and that M_T and ozeco agree - not directly relevant here.

Fact #6 Arguments should not be confused over the two mechanisms and any relationship they may have.

And an "incidental issue" - which goes to the use of the label "ROOSD".

Change the word "fact" if you prefer. I've removed all the Major_Tom references. Do you have any objection to using "ROOSD" - we need a label and I think it would be artificial to introduce another label at this stage. I will use ROOSD specifically to refer to what it says. So only ONE of the three mechanisms of "progression".

Try again - please!

Offer made!



PS Should we OP a thread - it sort of worked in the "Laymen's Explanation for Jango" situation. Certainly there was zero noise before "mission accomplished"

 

[beachnut]

...

But we are bogged down in arguing about nit pick details of members statements.

Can you and I start from zero base? ...

Your claim or mine?

I've removed all the Major_Tom references. Do you have any objection to using "ROOSD" - we need a label and I think it would be artificial to introduce another label at this stage. ...

The details of the progression to failure after the decisive initial trigger that sets the upper part of the structure in motion are of course more complicated. The upper part of the structure, for example, tilts as it falls; furthermore, because the structure is a framed tube with floor beams of large spans, the impacted floors may collapse ahead of the tube, thus depriving the tube wall of its lateral support against global buckling.

Bazant figured out the collapse before MT claimed the collapse, the gravity collapse was an illusion and WTC 7 was CD. MT and others can't figure out Bazant, so they call people names. NISTians? Really. No spire? Guess MT does not like people checking the history, and also using descriptions he has not accepted. If I hear meme one more time... lol

Why does MT have a general contempt for science, and people like Bazant. Is it due to an inability to find errors in the work, so BS is posted.

ROOSD has become, due to posting history, more like, Rattled On Obvious Science Design. Due to making fun of physics, and how things can be simplified to "1D", and "blocks"; which is called, "blockhead". ROOSD, an acronym for failed psychological techno-babble and false statements, the summary for the conclusion of the "book"; where no one got the collapse right. What is on video and film...

Try gravity collapse, at least that is only an illusion to a few. What is the purpose of studying the collapse? Who does not have access to the video and photos? The book failed to make a decision on CD, or not; thus leaving the most complete whatever... Is WTC 7 still a CD in the land of ROOSD and the "book"?
Is 911 and inside job, after the "book/ROOSD" declares

In reality there is no scientific approach and, therefore, no technical history of the collapses at all. This is a verifiable statement.

ROOSD has become a reminder of this lie, this BS, this contempt of science; a contempt of all studies done by engineers, students, NIST, Bazant, and others.

Carry on - type on (roosd has also become a good BS indicator

 

[ozeco41]

@beachnut You are not the only on who can miss the point.

My post was specifically about a difference of opinion between Oystein and myself. We both regard the other as honest serious debaters with somewhat different areas of expertise. For what it is worth I take you as the Gold Standard on aviation related matters.

The only issue where your nonsense overlaps my quote is on the mechanism labelled ROOSD. I offered Oystein the option given that ROOSD the acronym is the only convenient label we have for the mechanism that actually happened.

BUT - since you directed your comments at me - here are my brief responses inserted << in line:

Bazant figured out the collapse << Patronising strawman - I am fully aware of the fact that Bazant (a) Identified the real and complicated mechanism THEN chose a simpler model for a valid "Limit Case" argument. So stop pretending that my understanding is lacking as an excuse for a "beachnut standard rant" against Major_Tom. Try reading the thread before MT claimed the collapse, << Who came first is not under discussion. the gravity collapse was an illusion and WTC 7 was CD. << Off Topic MT << I have specifically excluded M_T from the proposed discussion. and others can't figure out Bazant, so they call people names. << Fully agreed those are two valid assertions - I have excluded PA's and name calling to focus in the technical issues. Just about everyone posting must support that "others don't understand" - think about that. I agree that others cannot NISTians? Really. No spire? Guess MT does not like people checking the history, and also using descriptions he has not accepted. << MT is excluded from the scope of my suggested discussion which is what YOU quoted and apparently are objecting to If I hear meme one more time... lol >\<< Yes - I agree - the topic of belief systems would be far too challenging for many members

Why does MT have a general contempt for science, and people like Bazant. Is it due to an inability to find errors in the work, so BS is posted. << Dunno - or at least won't comment because the discussion referred to in my post you quoted excludes M_T aspects

ROOSD has become, due to posting history, more like, Rattled On Obvious Science Design. Due to making fun of physics, and how things can be simplified to "1D", and "blocks"; which is called, "blockhead". ROOSD, an acronym for failed psychological techno-babble, << That is an outright lie - Runaway Open Office Space Destruction is literally what it says and even you cannot truly believe it is psychology. Nor can you be serious suggesting that it was NOT the mechanism when M_T says it is in the same post as you say Bazant identified it. "RIGHT" if Bazant says it - "WRONG" if Major_Tom says it? Get real. and false statements the summary for the conclusion of the "book"; where no one got the collapse right. What is on video and film... << dishonest parody is easy. If you object to the mechanism of progression collapse then tell us - most of us debunkers - where we are wrong with the mechanism. That will be lonely untenable position for an engineer speaking out against many of us in the profession. IF you disagree with the acronym suggest another label or join those who say none is needed which is untenable nonsense in both engineering and linguistics,

Try gravity collapse, at least that is only an illusion to a few. << Strawman What is the purpose of studying the collapse? << To understand it - in my case so I can explain it to persons who do not understand Who does not have access to the video and photos? The book failed to make a decision on CD, or not; thus leaving the most complete whatever... Is WTC 7 still a CD in the land of ROOSD and the "book"?
Is 911 and inside job, after the "book/ROOSD" declares ROOSD has become a reminder of this lie, this BS, this contempt of science; a contempt of all studies done by engineers, students, NIST, Bazant, and others. << Irrelevant and off topic ranting.

Carry on - type on (roosd has also become a good BS indicator << Only for those who put attacking M_T ahead of engineering truth.

Rant all you want beachie - it has become part of the furniture around here. It is even amusing to see how far off the point you will go.

BUT if you quote me please address what I say and don't trivialise it with irrelevant bits of rantery.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Newtons Bit and R Mackey claim that the study provides no new information that was not known before.

Unless participants in the JREF forum have abandoned Bazant's opinions stated in BV and BL, this is provably false.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


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.

Let's ask R Mackey and NB the following questions and see what they have to say:

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?

. Yes, the mass must be preserved to drive the crush front without shedding large amounts of mass, this is also seen and matched to the seismic data, in the models that give
a good Idea of collapse timing, however that does not mean that the structure itself is maintained as whole.
It is basicly a mass conservation Idea.

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

Yes for the Banzant model to which they are applied, Greenings Calculations and BLGB, using the Greening model, were better but not perfect fluid dynamics, and complexity will always create inconsistency in the model vs, reality.

3) Is the following statement true or false:

Dr Bazant believes that a crush-down phase must continue to completion before a crush up phase can begin.

Yes as seen in collapse time and seismic data the accelerated mass must be conserved, (not shed)that however does not mean that disunity does not occur.

4) Is ROOSD consistent the claims of crush down preceding crush up in BV and BL?

Yes, the mass of the floors and upper block mostly conserved, ( not shed) as in the simplified example of the upper block, is the primary mass doing the work, crushing in ROOSD, though the Formation of a Homogeneous mass of( spreading falling crushing rubble,) ROOSD is a complimentary addition to all of the (Banzant, limited case papers,) that shows how natural variations will produce variations that are impossible for physics models to predict.

 

[beachnut]

...
Rant all you want beachie - it has become part of the furniture around here. It is even amusing to see how far off the point you will go.

BUT if you quote me please address what I say and don't trivialise it with irrelevant bits of rantery.

ROOSD was plagiarized from others. Most likely unknown to MT.

Thank you, thank you very much, I will rant all I want... thanks

Don't worry, MT and his he will not leave and you will have someone to "debate".

I thought you were an engineer... how do you put up with MT's trashing models, math, and engineering. Not that engineers deserve respect, but ... the ROODS stuff is BS. And it did not cut into my engineering training to make that "rant".

I've only been an engineer since 74, and only exercised my degrees at AFWAL for a few years... there is no ROOSD model. As I "rant" on...

Already been punisheded for my rant by your country... worry not, the Perth airport kicked me out of "downunder", refuse to sell me more fuel; we used up all their fuel to fly missions out of perth; three 135 air-frames use a lot of fuel...


The rant was not about you...

Your NIST WTC1 collapse scenario is a fiction. Your Bazant papers BV, BL and BLGB are fictions.

You will never review these critically.

Instead, you witch-hunt anyone who pops you bubble of illusion.

If you were a critical thinker, you would correctly criticize NIST and BV, BL and BLGB instead of trying to get me kicked out for posting math without the proper permit.

This is the best MT has, calling everything but his ROOSD BS; fiction. The people who celebrate MT, failed to read Bazant, and ignore MT's disdain for science. The only people who need Bazant, NIST, and other studies are 911 truth followers who need a scapegoat for their failed CD/inside job fantasy.

What is the purpose of studying the collapse, after initiation? Fall back to the easy target, expose the rant again. I thought my rant was about the book and ROOSD; you were not the target. Are you?

Anyway...

These are just some of the factors which, when studied in depth, show that the supposed "gravity-driven collapse" is a mere illusion to mask an intentional act so barbaric, so inhumane and morally impoverished that the fabled characteristics of Satan come to mind. ....

The ROOSD is so shallow, it comes down to the same problem... there is no retraction of this BS. It would be neat if MT tried math again.

Don't worry, I am only furniture, a SAC trained killer

 

[ozeco41]

ROOSD was plagiarized from others. Most likely unknown to MT.

You do persist in confusing the mechanism with the name. Dozens of people identified the mechanism. This was my Nov 2007 version of the mechnaism:

To my regret I never gave it a name - just think if a competent engineer debunker had named it Major_Tom's word would be redundant. Would have saved a lot of wasted bandwidth.

Thank you, thank you very much, I will rant all I want... thanks

Be my guest.

Don't worry, MT and his he will not leave and you will have someone to "debate".

I'll bet you have NEVER seen me debate with MT - and back in the day when I did post stuff at him it was all directed at his nonsense. Style, bad logic, personal attacks and snide comments. He even set up a character assassination thread all for lil ole me. I've given him a harder time than anyone else has on this forum without being personal or dishonest or illogical.

I thought you were an engineer... how do you put up with MT's trashing models, math, and engineering. Not that engineers deserve respect, but ... the ROODS stuff is BS. And it did not cut into my engineering training to make that "rant".

You are wrong on the engineering model. Rave or rant all you like about the label of ROOSD - we haven't got another label. Suggest one. BUT that crude graphic of mine shows what actually happened and I'll give you a hard time if you say otherwise..

I've only been an engineer since 74, and only exercised my degrees at AFWAL for a few years... there is no ROOSD model.

You are risking getting specific - how do you explain the progression stage collapse? Do you disagree with my graphic - it is crude and it was my first effort - I'm a lousy artist. But I stand by the claim that it is what happened. And it was after only 2 weeks on the internet and a couple of years before I heard of M_T or "ROOSD" or confusion by people not understanding Bazant

Already been punished for my rant by your country... worry not, the Perth airport kicked me out of "downunder", refuse to sell me more fuel; we used up all their fuel to fly missions out of perth; three 135 air-frames use a lot of fuel...

Were they out of fuel or didn't trust the credit rating of the US Government? Closest thing I ever got to flying in military aircraft was an hour in a Macchi Trainer - My army engineer unit did some work for the Naval Airbase and it was a bit of payback joy riding. (Part of the deal - they wanted to extend the officers "Wardroom Mess" - we did the plans, got them approved by the local authorities and poured the foundation and floor concrete - in a 14 day camp. Deals within deals - the Engieenr Commander Colonel was the local council's boss engineer. )

The rant was not about you...

I know - and I was only partially serious as you should know. This game is supposed to be fun.

What is the purpose of studying the collapse, after initiation? Fall back to the easy target, expose the rant again. I thought my rant was about the book and ROOSD; you were not the target. Are you?

It's a baby and bathwater problem. And history. Back in 2006-7-8 we had truthers like Chandler raving about "squibs" in the progression stage. I made that graphic to show truthers and sceptics what really happened (in those days we had both groups plus very few trolls - the forum rules got rid of them) For my own reasons I decided to work it out for myself which meant ignoring NIST. Never even bothered about the academics till on this forum I made a comment about "Limits of Bazant". The situation here was confusion over Limit Case and real collapse. Many members have re-written history on that - just read this thread. And many outright deny the confusion. In thread like this which proves the confusion still exists. Go figure.

Anyway...

The ROOSD is so shallow, it comes down to the same problem... there is no retraction of this BS. It would be neat if MT tried math again.

We are going round the same circle - which bits of the confusion NEED maths? The energies are so overwhelming that you only need ball park guesstimates to prove CD not needed. And CD not performed doesn't need maths at all - only evidence and logic.

Don't worry, I am only furniture, a SAC trained killer

M'mm I'm a trained jungle killer from the walking branch of the military reserve. (Weekend Warriors. Choco's. Cut-lunch Commandos are the Aussie terms of affection for us part timers. Not a problem in engineers - mutual respect between the civil trained and the military trained professionals.) I qualified in infantry THEN found that the next step wasn't adultery. Big disappointment.

Plus as a military engineer I can blow things up with big banging noises. Never tried thermXte as a military demolitions tool. And all the explosives I used made LOUD BANGING NOISES - so I could never be a truther - don't know about the silent stuff.

 

[JSanderO]

These personality driven conflicts are a waste of time.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

These personality driven conflicts are a waste of time.

Agreed but that seems to be what this forum is for, conflict between Ideas, to waste time.

JSO you might want to read Dr. Greenings report, so might you, Ozeco41.
www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

 

[Bravin Neff]

Might as well get this out of the way...

 

[Major_Tom]

These personality driven conflicts are a waste of time.

If you are looking for technically intelligent discourse, and an accurate representation of the technical history of the WTC collapses, it is a waste of time.

But if you are watching or studying how the large majority of the JREF/ISF subculture perceives and represents the written technical history of the WTC collapses, this thread is very interesting.


The history as it is perceived within this subculture is nothing but sets of memes and talking points. Participants here are very clear and largely in consensus as to what those memes are. People are very open and vocal on those talking points.


If you want an accurate representation of the written history, this place is a dump (excepting a few people who would like to see more intelligent discussions).

If you are mapping sets of memes, or 'memeplexes', as found within the debunking subculture, this thread is very useful.

 

[JSanderO]

Agreed but that seems to be what this forum is for, conflict between Ideas, to waste time.

JSO you might want to read Dr. Greenings report, so might you, Ozeco41.
www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Maybe later.

Seismic data is unreliable for "collapse time"... there was a rain of debris which STARTED 9 seconds maybe... after the top starting to drop... the time it would take for a heavy steel section to hit ground... IF there were any. Perhaps maybe parts of the antenna... maybe some facade steel... Seismic impact? Dunno.

The it the floor rained down but when was THAT impact seen? Then there was the peeling of the facade. When was THAT impact recorded as a seismic signature.

This is completely impossible. Good luck with that!

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Maybe later.

Seismic data is unreliable for "collapse time"... there was a rain of debris which STARTED 9 seconds maybe... after the top starting to drop... the time it would take for a heavy steel section to hit ground... IF there were any. Perhaps maybe parts of the antenna... maybe some facade steel... Seismic impact? Dunno.

The it the floor rained down but when was THAT impact seen? Then there was the peeling of the facade. When was THAT impact recorded as a seismic signature.

This is completely impossible. Good luck with that!

The first impact beam to beam was initiation,

The last impact was collapse driving mass.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

If you are looking for technically intelligent discourse, and an accurate representation of the technical history of the WTC collapses, it is a waste of time.

But if you are watching or studying how the large majority of the JREF/ISF subculture perceives and represents the written technical history of the WTC collapses, this thread is very interesting.


The history as it is perceived within this subculture is nothing but sets of memes and talking points. Participants here are very clear and largely in consensus as to what those memes are. People are very open and vocal on those talking points.


If you want an accurate representation of the written history, this place is a dump (excepting a few people who would like to see more intelligent discussions).

If you are mapping sets of memes, or 'memeplexes', as found within the debunking subculture, this thread is very useful.

I answered those questions as related to me when I asked Banzant, in an email.

 

[WilliamSeger]

If you are looking for technically intelligent discourse, and an accurate representation of the technical history of the WTC collapses, it is a waste of time.

But if you are watching or studying how the large majority of the JREF/ISF subculture perceives and represents the written technical history of the WTC collapses, this thread is very interesting.

I guess that explains why you haven't shown much interest in "technically intelligent discourse, and an accurate representation of the technical history of the WTC collapses," yourself.

 

[Oystein]

A question left unanswered:

Thanks for admitting that.

[...that I, Oy, haven't read BV or BL and am not interested]

There is no logical reason to express strong views of any kind over a paper you have not read.
...

Can you please be clear:
Do you claim that I, Oystein, have expressed strong views of any kind over BV and/or BL?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I guess that explains why you haven't shown much interest in "technically intelligent discourse, and an accurate representation of the technical history of the WTC collapses," yourself.

You mean (northridge style open space shear collapses)?

NOSC for short. Or NOSD if you prefer.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Thanks for admitting that. There is no logical reason to express strong views of any kind over a paper you have not read.

I suspect many people expressing strong views over a period of 5 years, from the very first page of this thread, have never read the papers in question.

The very few people who have read BV (2007) have never read the closure to BV which is BL (2008). Yet they have been expressing very strong views on what Bazant meant within the closure paper for over 5 years.

R Mackey had clearly never read the paper, and didn't even know it existed.


I have seen no evidence that Dave Rogers has read BV or the closure to BV, which is BL.


Newtons Bit had read BV, but there is no evidence within any of his posts that he had read BL.

In your hunt for "debunker memes," you seem to have missed a big one: it seems nobody much cares about BV.

 

[Bravin Neff]

If you are mapping sets of memes, or 'memeplexes', as found within the debunking subculture, this thread is very useful.

No doubt it will be valuable documentation for future study. In this important work, one will find the number of times:

• Folks said something positive about the NIST study.
• Folks talked about Bazantian block C.
• Folks talked about the homogeneity of block C.
• Folks confused B&Z with B&V.
• And other things whose triviality guarantees the work will remain self-published.

The paragraphs of this future book might look like the following: “In the immediate years following 9/11, the JREF/ISF debunking crowd………………………..meme……………… ……………..memeplex…………………………… ……………………………….meme………………………… ……………………….meme……………………………………… …………………………………meme…………………………………… ………………………………………meme……………………………… …………………………… ……………………….memeplex………………………………………….. ……….meme……………………………………………take careful note of the Bazant meme………………. ………………………………………………..meme…………………………………………meme….............. ....................… memeplex………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………meme……………………………. ……………………..meme.”

 

[WilliamSeger]

Thanks for admitting that.

[...that I, Oy, haven't read BV or BL and am not interested]

That's okay; you don't need to read it. Current meme downloads are available on the debunker subculture dark site.

Can you please be clear:
Do you claim that I, Oystein, have expressed strong views of any kind over BV and/or BL?

I haven't seen any, which is exactly why it's important to keep current on memes, Oystein.

 

[GlennB]

No doubt it will be valuable documentation for future study. In this important work, one will find the number of times:

• Folks said something positive about the NIST study.
• Folks talked about Bazantian block C.
• Folks talked about the homogeneity of block C.
• Folks confused B&Z with B&V.
• And other things whose triviality guarantees the work will remain self-published.

The paragraphs of this future book might look like the following: “In the immediate years following 9/11, the JREF/ISF debunking crowd………………………..meme……………… ……………..memeplex…………………………… ……………………………….meme………………………… ……………………….meme……………………………………… …………………………………meme…………………………………… ………………………………………meme……………………………… …………………………… ……………………….memeplex………………………………………….. ……….meme……………………………………………take careful note of the Bazant meme………………. ………………………………………………..meme…………………………………………meme….............. ....................… memeplex………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………meme……………………………. ……………………..meme.”

He's a meme artist.