• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

OOS Collapse Propagation Model

Status
Not open for further replies.
We have a basic misunderstanding on how to read the BV and BL papers linked in my last post.

Each is only a few pages long so it shouldn't be difficult to to see if R Mackey, Dave, NB and Myriad are right or wrong. We need to clear this up before the thread can progress.

My suggestion is that the readers learn to distinguish between Bazant and Zhao, published in 2002, and BL and BV, published in 2008.

Anyway, of the 4 only Myriad has tried to justify his opinion with an actual quote. He simply quoted the wrong abstract from the wrong paper presenting a different argument published 6 years earlier.

But that's cool, at least he tried.

So, I'll offer one last chance for those posters to reconsider their views before proceeding.
 
Major_Tom said:
So, I'll offer one last chance for those posters to reconsider their views before proceeding.
Click to expand...
Please proceed directly to presenting your findings to engineering colleges/universities and/or submitting papers to engineering journals or organizations.

Come back and post links when you're done.

Edit - I won't be holding my breath.
 
Major_Tom said:
We have a basic misunderstanding on how to read the BV and BL papers linked in my last post.

Each is only a few pages long so it shouldn't be difficult to to see if R Mackey, Dave, NB and Myriad are right or wrong. We need to clear this up before the thread can progress.

My suggestion is that the readers learn to distinguish between Bazant and Zhao, published in 2002, and BL and BV, published in 2008.

Anyway, of the 4 only Myriad has tried to justify his opinion with an actual quote. He simply quoted the wrong abstract from the wrong paper presenting a different argument published 6 years earlier.

But that's cool, at least he tried.

So, I'll offer one last chance for those posters to reconsider their views before proceeding.
Click to expand...


Assuming you are right and everyone else is wrong about how the building collapsed after the initiation event, so what? Interesting from a tech point of view and worth a technical paper, but its irrelevant to the subject of this section of the JREF forum, which is 911 Conspiracy Theories other than to debunk all the ridiculous CD "proof" that the truther movement comes up with.
You don't have to prove to us that the building would collapse after being hit by a plane and the subsequent fires:)
If however you are suggesting that something else was the initiator please open a new thread and detail with proofs what you think happened.
 
Major_Tom said:
Anyway, of the 4 only Myriad has tried to justify his opinion with an actual quote. He simply quoted the wrong abstract from the wrong paper presenting a different argument published 6 years earlier.
Click to expand...

You are a :rule10'ing liar.
 
Sheeples, good question.

There is so much crap in the "debate". Many truthers are just as guilty as many debunkers. It's a way to clear the air and focus on real issues.

Basically, it's a way to clear the air for the studies to follow. If this is not understood, people won't have a chance with what's to follow.

Bio, I'm not avoiding your question, I just don't have time to respond today.

NB, please keep digging a hole for yourself.
 
Last edited:
Major_Tom said:
Sheeples, good question.

There is so much crap in the "debate". Many truthers are just as guilty as many debunkers. It's a way to clear the air and focus on real issues.

Basically, it's a way to clear the air for the studies to follow. If this is not understood, people won't have a chance with what's to follow.

Bio, I'm not avoiding your question, I just don't have time to respond today.

NB, please keep digging a hole for yourself.
Click to expand...

Feel free to take your earthshattering findings to an accepted academic peer reviewed journal. There is no doubt your obvious intellectual superiority will give you an edge.

Drop me a PM when you have done so, 'cause I'll put you on ignore.
 
Major_Tom said:
We have a basic misunderstanding on how to read the BV and BL papers linked in my last post.

Each is only a few pages long so it shouldn't be difficult to to see if R Mackey, Dave, NB and Myriad are right or wrong. We need to clear this up before the thread can progress.

My suggestion is that the readers learn to distinguish between Bazant and Zhao, published in 2002, and BL and BV, published in 2008.
Click to expand...

BL:

Bazant & Le
Closure to "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions"
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25%20WTC%20Discussions%20Replies.pdf
Click to expand...


Why do you refer to this as BL since it's just a discussion/continuation of the Bazant and Verdure paper?
 
NB commented: You are a 'ing liar.

To which I answered: NB, please keep digging a hole for yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I retract the statement and apologize for the provocative statement.

I am reminded that within the entire body of work attributed to Plato, I have never seen Socrates say something like: "Hey, screw you, Buddy! Take a $#*@% leap!"

Instead he remains open to all views and courteous to all participants, inviting them to examine their own opinions for errors while freely admitting his own. Maybe for this reason the literature remains as a powerful example of civil discursive reasoning.

I was wrong to provoke him in this way. This is the home forum for many of you and I am just a guest. Using the example of Socrates I'll try to control impulses better.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

NB is also correct that he quoted from the correct paper, though in my opinion he interpreted the paper wrongly and in such a way that the main author himself would be baffled by the response given by NB and other posters as I will try to demonstrate through the arguments to come over the next few days.

But first I must clarify the views expressed by these posters to make sure we are all in agreement over what we are discussing. I'll do that over my next few posts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

David James comments: Please proceed directly to presenting your findings to engineering colleges/universities and/or submitting papers to engineering journals or organizations.

What's wrong with JREF for informal solicitation of comments over the first draft?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

RD asks: Why do you refer to this as BL since it's just a discussion/continuation of the Bazant and Verdure paper?

I follow the convention set by Dr Benson (DBB) who used it in discussion before me.

He wrote:

"B&L = BVreply.

First of all, the BV crush-down equation depends upon four simplifying assumptions, one of which is homogeneity and another is one dimensionality. Neither assumption holds well at the start when the kinetic energy of the moving portion is small. I have no disagreement with Major_Tom about the segment of zone C from the west wall, his analysis seems correct if he can actually identify the blackened portions of the exterior walls. The more recent attempt regarding NE corner could be based at floor 90 just as well as floor 96; a timing analysis might help to distinguish the two possiblities.

I suppose all of this happens with 1.5 seconds of collapse initiation,although I would like some timings! Thereinafter the collapse is closer to "pure" crush down. In any case, B&L indicate the possiblity of some early crush-up and so even having two sections of exterior wall ripped out is only a quite modest portion of zone C. Much the same happens to zone C of your crush-down simulation."

It's a significant article in itself. Dr Benson always refers to it as B&L or Bazant & Le, to distinguish it as a separate work - which it is. If the singular result of BL is not applicable to the towers, some of the specific mechanics go out the window.

As NB says:

"Bazant and Verdue[sic] sets out to model and understand progressive collapse. Not prove how the WTC collapsed. It uses the WTC only as a paradigm. I.e. an example, a model, a pattern, etc etc. It then applies the conclusions of this model to other buildings, as that is the stated purpose of this model."


This is starting not only from a specific case, but an extreme limit case and one which does not in fact match observables, and generalizing. The lynchpin of the rigid top assumption is 'proven' for a single special case, it does not apply to the general case so neither does the associated assumption. It's constitutive and still quite accurate in an overall sense, but there is some devil in the details. It's not the final word on dynamic models of the towers, let alone in the universal case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

More to come.
 
It does not speak well that this engineer cannot figure out the quote function on a simple internet forum.

ETA - sorry for being redundant. Didn't see TSR's post.
 
Last edited:
A preview of where this thread will be going and something to think about:

Is there any way, by using any of Dr Bazant's arguments about WTC1 in any of his papers, to distinguish between a natural collapse and a CD which takes advantage of ROOSD?
 
Major_Tom said:
A preview of where this thread will be going and something to think about:

Is there any way, by using any of Dr Bazant's arguments about WTC1 in any of his papers, to distinguish between a natural collapse and a CD which takes advantage of ROOSD?
Click to expand...

If this is where you're going, I'll save you the trouble. This line of inquiry goes nowhere.

Originally it was claimed by the Truth Movement that the character of the WTC collapses could only be caused by explosives. This, of course, was utter nonsense. Dr. Bazant's first paper was out before there ever was a Truth Movement, and the early Truthers were totally ignorant of his findings.

Dr. Bazant's later papers are a refinement of his initial work, partly in response to Truthers who remained ignorant even after learning of his findings, such as Mr. Gourley. They prove exactly what they set out to prove, namely that this style of collapse is not only possible, but in fact predicted, and that no explosives or thermite or space beams or anything are needed.

What you are asking is whether Dr. Bazant's results rule out explosives. That was not their intent, but in fact, they do. Not because an explosive demolition would perform differently with respect to the effects modeled, though. Instead, Dr. Bazant rules out explosives by attacking the "evidence" for explosives -- the only "evidence" there has ever been in support is the claim that it couldn't have happened any other way. That claim is refuted by Dr. Bazant's work, and therefore, there is no evidence of any kind, including the circumstantial for explosives.

What you're doing, typical of the more inane Truthers, is performing an extremely slow, dull-witted, and well-telegraphed Shifting the Burden of Proof and Begging the Question logical fallacy. Dr. Bazant's papers do precisely what they were intended to do. You are trying to show they are inadequate for a purpose they were never intended, and is not needed in the first place. What a waste of time.
 
In what way does his papers rule out a CD based on exploiting a ROOSD process?

I've never been able to take many of the claims by some truth movements seriously and have been kicked out of the STJ911 forum for asking too many questions. I, too, can kick Judy Wood around like a beach ball, but what point would it serve?

In my studies I have encountered many like-minded people who cannot accept the fall of WTC7 as a natural event, like you can.
.............

R Mackey comments: "What you are asking is whether Dr. Bazant's results rule out explosives. That was not their intent, but in fact, they do."

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?
 
Last edited:
Major_Tom said:
minimal explosives
Click to expand...
- LOL.

Please calculate the minimal explosives required, including their likely decibel levels.

Major_Tom said:
this type of controlled demolition?
Click to expand...

What type? Please give some examples of this "type" of controlled demolition. Or shall I switch into truther argument from incredulity and as if this is the only time in history that such a CD took place? Was it the real CD deal?
 
Major_Tom said:
A preview of where this thread will be going and something to think about:

Is there any way, by using any of Dr Bazant's arguments about WTC1 in any of his papers, to distinguish between a natural collapse and a CD which takes advantage of ROOSD?
Click to expand...

Oh boy, here it comes.

What a shocker.
 
Major_Tom said:
In what way does his papers rule out a CD based on exploiting a ROOSD process?
Click to expand...

Either logic or the English language escape you -- I answered you in the post you responded to. That was the whole point of the post!

Tell you what. I'll try again, and I'll use small words and simple sentences.

1. There is no evidence for explosives. None.

2. The closest there has ever been was a belief that only explosives would cause collapses like that.

3. This belief is false. Dr. Bazant's papers prove this.

4. Therefore, his papers rule out a controlled demolition.


Don't respond yet, just read the above until you understand.

Now that you understand, it's my turn to ask a question. You're interested in "controlled demolition" of WTC 1 and 2. Will you follow the scientific method in your study? Yes or no?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom