ozeco41
Philosopher
OOS Collapse Propagation Model
- Thread starter Major_Tom
- Start date
- Status
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Nah. Just me having fun with analogies. BTW the analogy is accurate BUT ignore it if EITHER it or the subject of current discussion is confusing.
Given the heat coming my way when I explained historic reality in plain English I got frustrated and played smart-arse with the analogy - being fully aware that analogy would probably be harder to process.
If you can filter out all the interpersonal issues and anti-truther bias there is only one technical issue of significance:
There are two descriptions of the mechanism of "Global Collapse" for the two Twin Towers. Those are:
1) Descriptions of what really happened - in this case Major_Toms version which he calls "OOS Model".
2) Academic abstract models by Prof. Z Bazant who wrote a series of papers - of which only the main aspect of the first paper validly applies to WTC 9/11 Twin Towers collapses.
So those two are the apple and orange of my analogy. The two are different and saying "they are both fruit" does not help when the discussion is about the difference between them. And the history of discussion is littered with people invalidly mixing the two.
DISCLAIMER: Members keep telling me I've got the history wrong. They should read post #3 of this thread.
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
Dear old Fart:Thanks.
The ozeco41 easy to decode.
I've given up claiming "39 and holding!"
And from one Master Curmudgeon to another: "It still moves..."!
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Congratulations on another trip around.Thanks.
The ozeco41 easy to decode.
I've given up claiming "39 and holding!"
Hope you had a great day.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Thanks.
Thanks also - FTFY
BTW Both daughters call me "The Old Fart" and I usually refer to myself as a "Pedantic Pri.... err....Pedantic Person."
Thanks. Did ...nothing special - fixed a computer for a friend.Congratulations on another trip around.
Hope you had a great day.
AND we are off topic.
Justin39640
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,202
Thanks.
The ozeco41 easy to decode.
I've given up claiming "39 and holding!"
Happy Birthday! So now you're 42! Congrats!
I think I'll be 39 for the second year in a row starting on my birthday tomorrow lol.
ozeco41
Philosopher
My wife has been claiming "39 and holding" for some years (30 - she abandoned the practice this year.
Best wishes for tomorrow - whenever that happens in your part of the world. I'm accustomed to being the best part of a day ahead of most of you.
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
I was working as a structural draftsman in Alexandria, VA, in 1973 when one of the Skyline Towers apartment buildings collapsed a few miles away in Baileys Crossroads. The initiating event was removing shoring below the 23rd floor before the concrete had properly cured, but why did the collapse proceed through all the floors, even those that had cured, down into the basement? The unanimous opinion of the engineers in that office was that the falling debris simply sheared the floors away from the columns, rather than collapsing the columns. Based on that experience, I immediately thought of something like ROOSD even as I watched the second tower fall. I have to doubt that I was alone in thinking that.
When I read Bazant's paper, I took it only as a convincing argument that the energy released was more than the structure could possibly absorb, even if all the columns gave maximum resistance before buckling -- which we know didn't happen since most columns were not buckled. Bazant himself said that that wasn't a realistic scenario but noted that other failure modes would have required less energy. Since then, every time I've argued with "truthers" about the collapse, I have asserted that the real story was the loss of structural integrity when floors were stripped away from columns.
So, when I first read about M_T's ROOSD theory, my only response was, "Duh!"
The OOS model is based on 6 observable physical features of the WTC1, 2 collapses:
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
The key difference between the OOS propagation model and other intelligent speculations and insightful forum posts is that the OOS model is backed up by evidence of the features listed above in the form of mappings.
Without the mappings of these physical features, the OOS propagation model would be just another claim or set of forum posts.
It was impossible to put the model together in its current form without having mappings of (1) perimeter behavior, (2) core behavior and the temporary survival of the core remnants, and (3) an identification and mapping of multiple crush fronts.
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
The key difference between the OOS propagation model and other intelligent speculations and insightful forum posts is that the OOS model is backed up by evidence of the features listed above in the form of mappings.
Without the mappings of these physical features, the OOS propagation model would be just another claim or set of forum posts.
It was impossible to put the model together in its current form without having mappings of (1) perimeter behavior, (2) core behavior and the temporary survival of the core remnants, and (3) an identification and mapping of multiple crush fronts.
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Note the change I made to number one. There are very few moments when any part of the core is directly observable.
Keep in mind MT, that I agree with the hypothesis of floor collapse led propagation of global collapse, vertical avalanche, or ROOSD.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Not really. All you need is a good understanding of how the building was constructed. That's why a lot of people figured it out right away.
You added observed detail.
Can we assume you're finally given up on the "CD" connection? There is no "mappings" to support this after-all.
Last edited:
I watched Femr2 and Achimspok map the entire east-west width of WTC1 and that gave me the last piece of the puzzle.
WTC1 core remnant is mapped in this thread
The OOS model was first written about 1 week after that.
These 4 essential mappings were necessary to write the model in its current form:
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
If these mappings were removed from the model, the rest of the information wouldn't stand a chance in front of a hostile audience.
And not even these can fend off someone like TFK and Beachnut as their posts make clear.
Last edited:
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
Seems to me, 4 is all you need for ROOSD, unless you intend to make some point beyond ROOSD...? What exactly is the point of belaboring this?
This is what TFK, an engineer and a regular member of this forum, recently said about the mechanism described in the OOS propagation model:
Do you really think you can explain the validity of the concept by using mappings of only the rubble layout to TFK or Beachnut?
WilliamSeger, do you see any contradiction between the OOS model presented here and the concept of crush-down, crush-up in Bazant's 4 papers on the WTC from 2007 to the present?
Last edited:
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Why is it you feel that the two models can be directly compared, and fulfill the same modeling purposes at the same level of abstraction?
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
What I think I can explain from the rubble pile is that, over all, the predominate failure modes involved floors being ripped away from columns rather than columns buckling. I don't see how that refutes anything you quoted from tfk. If those details are necessary features of your ROOSD, then there does seem to be a gap between the "validity of the concept" and the particular details you claim.
I believe that Bazant is certainly correct that the debris layer itself had tremendous destructive effects on the structure below, regardless of the failure modes. I believe that David Chandler is certainly wrong to ignore that debris layer and only consider a top and bottom section with "equal and opposite reaction." So, if the "OOS model presented here" contradicts Bazant and asserts that the top and bottom sections were destroyed equally, then I believe that model is not helpful in understanding what happened.
As I wrote, these 4 essential mappings were necessary to write the model in its current form:
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
You are suggesting that the first 3 mappings are unnecessary to understand the collapse progression process. Only the fourth is necessary.
TFK made some statements in the quotes produced which are in direct contradiction to the visual record. The mappings necessary to spot the incorrect statements are in the first 3 mappings listed above (the ones that you just suggested were not necessary).
They are necessary to spot common misrepresentations of the WTC1, 2 collapses, such as the ones TFK made and you were unable to identify as misrepresentations.
The mappings taken collectively also help shed light on WTC misrepresentations within the Bazant papers from 2007 to the present. The recorded posts within this thread from page 1 to the present time demonstrate conclusively that there are active posters here that still cannot spot any contradiction between the latter Bazant papers and the OOS propagation model.
Last edited:
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
I'm suggesting that number 4 is all that's necessary to understand that the primary failure modes were floors stripped from their supports, which is the part of ROOSD I accept. I'm willing to be convinced on other details of "the model presented here" but I was wondering if you could cut to the chase and tell me what you're getting at.
In that first excerpt, tfk was saying you were making claims that went beyond the visual record, and in the second he is denying equal crush-up and -down, which I agree with. But I think I see where this is heading...
So, this is just another attempt to discredit Bazant's analysis by discrediting "crush-down/crush-up?" Some "truthers" seem to think that if they can disprove that, then there is no "pile-driver" to destroy the building, so explosives must have been used. I believe that is nonsense, whether or not and to what extent crush-down/crush-up occurred. As I said, I believe Bazant is certainly correct that the debris layer between the upper and lower blocks means the forces on them could not be equal, and Bazant actually has a mathematical model, whereas your "model" seems to be supposition. Anyway, I'm not convinced it really matters unless you are trying to make some point beyond ROOSD; so again, are you?
As I wrote, these 4 essential mappings were necessary to write the model in its current form:
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
The claim TFK believes goes beyond the visual record is very noticeable within the visual record, but you will not see it in the 4th listed mapping. It is in the 3rd listed mapping.
It is a property of the WTC1 west face crush front and is well documented in the OOS model and in other sections of the book.
The OOS propagation model is linked here
Where in it or in the entire website do I make such a claim as "equal crush-up and down"?
The claim came from somewhere within TFK's mind.
This exchange is a wonderful demonstration of what I wrote a few posts ago:
If you used the 3rd listed observed and documented feature you could have easily spotted one of TFK's mistakes.
If you actually read the model carefully instead of simply believing what TFK posted about it, you would have spotted where TFK attributed a statement to me that is baseless. He just made up the statement and you apparently believed him.
Last edited:
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
I've skimmed it a couple of times, but since I'm not interested in your obsession with Bazant's mathematical crush-down/crush-up model, it was TL;DR in detail. If that's your only point, then I probably won't read it. To me, the important part of Bazant's papers is the energy analysis, and from that perspective it sounds to me like you're saying it wasn't crush-down/crush-up; it was much worse and less survivable than that because ROOSD takes less energy.
I recognize that you have put a lot of work into that book, and I respect that effort, but I'm simply asking, what is the point of all this? Do you believe you have found something of significance, and if so, what is it?
- Status