OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[Major_Tom]

TFK wrote of the OOS model in another thread:

__



Now, about "ROOSD" & "OOP"...

I’ve NEVER given a rat’s ass about your delusional theory about the crush down. You are all amateurs, and I don’t listen to, I don't bother with, amateurs. Especially amateurs that isolate themselves from professionals, and behave like adolescent punks.

Against my better judgment, I gave your OOP a brief scan. I got a grand total of about 4 paragraphs into it & was laughing too hard to continue.

It’s a combination of:

a) baseless assertions (“Diifferent OOS regions have different collapse fronts at different positions at any moment in time”),

b) assertions about things that you cannot see & therefore cannot know (“ The rubble in the OOS sw corridor of WTC1 was 10 to 15 stories ahead of OOS nw destruction midway into the collapse”),

c) meaningless technobabble (“Phases are natural physical stages in the collapse”), and

d) 12 year old, fully explained, fully debunked factual error (“Phase #1: process of mutual upper portion, lower portion destruction until the upper portion is essentially fragmented.”)

That’s as far as I’m willing to waste my time.

So, I’ll tell ya what, Tommy, my boy. Since YOU have already blown away the brain cells required to absorb the wondrous theory, ROOSD, (the theory that NOBODY of any consequence in the history of engineering* has ever heard about, or ever will hear about), why don’t YOU tell us all what YOU think that your point is.

This should be fun. And funny.

Go.

Tom

*”… NOBODY of any consequence in the history of engineering” with the possible exception of me, Ryan Mackey, and a few other accomplished posters here.

I include Ryan (& Dave Thomas) for their professional accomplishments & their efforts to educate people on 911 issues.

I immodestly include myself because one of my inventions have directly helped save the lives of over 50,000 people & another has already started an inexorable ramp that will lead directly to saving over a million. So I award myself a little "consequence in the history of engineering".

Immodest, I know.
But completely true.

If it didn’t piss all you Truthers off to the point of aneurysm, I wouldn’t have worked so hard to shoe-horn the fact into this post. LoL.

For some bizarre reason, you seem to be fixated on what I think about your theory.

Let me be clear: I DON'T think about your theory.

I read the first couple of paragraphs of your theory, found a fatal flaw & therefore reject your theory.

I do think about, and agree with Bazant's theory.

His theory is correct over the range of collapse that matters: the first several stories. The energy gained over this range is sufficient to justify his conclusion that THESE BUILDINGS will inevitably collapse to the ground.

THAT'S what I think.

TFK, could you go into more detail about fatal flaws you've spotted.

 

[beachnut]

...The pulverization question comes from some blockhead truthers who are no more intelligent than the blockhead debunkers from this forum.

...
Dave has been strongly influenced by blockheads. It could take some time before normal judgement and a sense of fairness and balance in debate returns.

Are you still a truther? Is your fantasy of CD, thermite or silent explosives? Is that your book conclusion, blockheads did it? Will you debunk thermite and CD?

Can you list the blockheads, or is that in your book too? CD or no CD, I can't decode your conclusion I have a block. No, you have no conclusion except you are the only one who can see the video of the WTC collapse, no one else can. What does it say.

Careful, detailed observation of the WTC1 and WTC2 core remnants and perimeter motion allow us to understand the probable mechanism by which the towers collapsed.

What is the probable mechanism? Can you summarize that? No.

Each slab is an independent structure and is held onto the building only through perimeter and core column connections. Were it not for these connections each slab could move freely.

wow, who knew the floors were hooked to the Shell and the Core? Who made who, who made ... moving floors, that would be different.

oops, I found the mechanism for the collape, the connections on floors, can only hold about 29,000,000 pounds per floor. Never mind, your OOS is BS, I will use the WPF as the real collapse mechanism.

each slab could move freely.

is this in the book too.

 

[Spanx]

Would those barrels be full of thermite ?

 

[beachnut]

Would those barrels be full of thermite ?

Those are barrels of silent explosives, special magic powder. That might be in the book, everything is in the 'book'.

Major Tom's book, does it debunk 911 truth, or support 911 truth. No one will know, it is a mystery.

Maybe the guy who put in the dampers, was it 10,000 dampers, did 911; was it 3M with the damper, or Captain Mustard with the magic dust?

Does the OOS propagation Model support this claim.

... the supposed "gravity-driven collapse" is a mere illusion ...

Is this claim in the book? Is this MIHOP, or LIHOP. Who made the illusion of the "gravity-driven collapse", are they the bad guys.

 

[ozeco41]

If we set aside all the evasions and retrospective attacks on Major_Tom referring to past history the core facts are simple:

1) What Major_Tom describes as ROOSD is a valid technical explanation of the progression stages of WTC1 and WTC2 collapse.

2) The ROOSD component - collapse driven by material falling down the open office space - is the core element of how I described the collapses from 2007-2008 onwards. It was my putting into words what was clearly evident from the visual record. I was not aware of Major_Tom describing the same process until either 2009 or 2010.

It does not matter who came first or if anyone else was describing it that way in those days. Reality is that the technical concept was vehemently opposed by many here on JREF. The prevailing ethos here and on some other forums was that Bazant was 100% correct. That Bazant could never be wrong. And a lot of effort was expended twisting proofs to make them align with Bazant's ideas. The sad aspect of all of it being that much of the debunker material was based on wrong interpretations of Bazant's work. Plus, later, bastardisation of WTC collapse analysis to make it fit "crush down/crush up" which never did fit the actual WTC 9/11 collapses.

Opposition to Major_Tom rarely if ever addressed the accuracy of his technical work rather was based solely on the categorising him as a truther and the nonsense JREF meme of those days that everything a truther says must be false. It is sad that even today many members cannot admit and move on from those infamous concepts.

Whether or not M_T at some stage in his career had posted pro truther statements AND whether or not he has since abrogated them does not affect in the slightest the technical accuracy of his collapse mechanism explanations based on collapse driven down the tube of the OOS.

The debunker position opposing that technical aspect of Major_Tom's claim is ridiculous. It is as if Major_Tom was to claim "the cloudless daytime sky is blue" the debunkers lined up to denounce "sky is blue" because it must be false because M_T said it and M_T was once a truther.

And I have been making that ridiculing "blue sky" comment for several years - search my posts for references to "blue sky" or "blue sky syndrome".

So the technical claim is true and tfk's denial of that aspect of technical claim is false.

I have no sympathy for Major_Tom's style of presenting - innuendo framed in pre-announce "gotcha trickery". He is his own worst enemy if he has any intention of making the technical point. ...and I see no merit in the implied claims that he was first or he was the only one to whom the truth has been revealed.

So attack style if you can find a legit way of doing it which accords with the spirit of the membership agreement. But drop the false claims that he is wrong on OOS led collapse.

It is not wrong. It is true when I say it. True when other debunkers say it. It cannot concurrently be false when M_T says it simply because someone can archaeologically quote mine some ancient claim by M_T that shows he was pro-truther.

 

[Major_Tom]

One more comment by TFK on the OOS propagation mechanism:

I'll assume that "abstract or academic models" means Bazant's theories.

I agree that MTom's theory contradicts Bazant. It appears, from a cursory read, that MTom's theory concludes equal crush up & crush down over the first several floors.

In this critical respect, Bazant is right & MTom is wrong.

If you think otherwise, you're invited to point out Bazant's math error(s).

Of course, nobody can point out MTom's math errors, because ..., well, we ALL know why.



If you think that I "hate" the term ROOSD, you're mistaken. I suggest that you try to read what I write with comprehension, & not insert your own "angst".

"Disdain" would be more accurate.

I specifically said that no engineer of any consequence had ever heard about the term (which I cannot prove), or had ever used the term (or concept) in any analysis. I stand by this statement &, even better, it is trivially easy to prove.

I assert that precisely, not approximately, but precisely ZERO papers, written by any structural engineers & published in peer-reviewed engineering journals, have used either the acronym or the full terms embodied by either ROOSD or OOP.

Prove me wrong. This is where a Google Scholar search (accompanied with a certain amount of weeding) makes your task simple.

If you cannot prove me wrong on this point, then my statement is undeniably correct.

TFK, could you go into more detail about fatal flaws you've spotted.

 

[Major_Tom]

Beachnut, I'd appreciate if you could lend your expertise and experience to weigh in on this question:


Beachnut, do you see any contradiction between the OOS model presented here in 2010 and this concept of crush-down claimed to be verified in the OP of the "bazant was right" thread?

 

[jaydeehess]

Key-Riest.......
NIST, in essence, agrees with Major Tom. Shall we all just take note of that for a few moments.

From NIST FAQ.(hilite mine) http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 square feet, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on Sept. 11, 2001, was 80 pounds per square foot. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 square feet) by the gravitational load (80 pounds per square foot), which yields 2,500,000 pounds (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 pounds) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 pounds), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated exceeded six for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

This is a simplified model description of the collapse but NIST is saying that the floor to column connections were massively overloaded. That is not to say that an entire floor pan failed in one piece(so-called 'pancake' collapse). It standsa to reason that in a structure that was damaged more by impact in some regions, that those areas saw failure earlier. It stands to reason that a tilted upper , falling mass would impact lower regions on its lower edge first.
AFAIAC , MT's details as to what portion of the building went first is the only part that may be debated , and that's not really relevant to a characterization of how the collapse progressed.

Upper mass began coming down. Columns sections of upper falling mass CANNOT, at that time, be aligned with their original lower sections. THEREFORE the structures that will be hit by this falling mass is, by a vast margin, the floor pans. The only debate then would be what fails first, floor pan or truss connections to columns. (and it hardly matters, if either fails then collapse progresses further, mass increases, velocity increases, and collapse just keeps going. Columns are left there with nothing supporting them laterally)

 

[LSSBB]

One more comment by TFK on the OOS propagation mechanism:





TFK, could you go into more detail about fatal flaws you've spotted.

I wonder if it would be more productive for all concerned if you instead got Tony Szamboti to debate with you on this subject.

 

[ozeco41]

Key-Riest.......
NIST, in essence, agrees with Major Tom. Shall we all just take note of that for a few moments.

Thank you sir.

[more good stuff]

Then this key point:

...Upper mass began coming down. Columns sections of upper falling mass CANNOT, at that time, be aligned with their original lower sections. THEREFORE [Even more good stuff]

And the number of times that bit of bleedingly obvious truth has been overlooked.... (The most obvious examples being all the discussion about "axial contact v tilt" AND "Missing Jolt" which is only a specific example of the same error(s) of false starting point assumptions.)

And - just to make sure I'm not misunderstood - none of my agreement with M_T's technical claims should be seen as endorsing his "style" of posting.

 

[DGM]

And - just to make sure I'm not misunderstood - none of my agreement with M_T's technical claims should be seen as endorsing his "style" of posting.

I think this is the key to everyone's resistance to Major_Tom.

His "book" is absolute torture to read.

 

[MileHighMadness]

I think this is the key to everyone's resistance to Major_Tom.

His "book" is absolute torture to read.

It's a monument written to appease TM massive ego. IMHO

 

[ozeco41]

I think this is the key to everyone's resistance to Major_Tom.

His "book" is absolute torture to read.

It's a monument written to appease TM massive ego. IMHO

I know. Check the record - I have probably spent more effort than anyone trying to help him through his logical structure problems. And I wont even go near the "Book" because of the persistent false generalising of partial truths in the content and the self aggrandising style.

However I have consistently praised his technical work. He in return has never acknowledged my support - other than some occasions of agreement when we joined with others in assessing the "Limits of Applicability of Bazant..." thread - (Title from memory) - back in ?? 2010?

So these recent flashbacks are deja vu 2009 and earlier - before many of us got Bazant in perspective. The era of "Bazant is always 100% correct and anyone saying otherwise is a silly truther" should be well behind us.

(Please forgive the caricature - I cannot be bothered posting the strictly and pedantically accurate version which would need about 500 words. )

 

[LSSBB]

It's a monument written to appease TM massive ego. IMHO

Which is doubley as funny when you know that Tony Szamboti apparently doesn't think MT's theory exists. Look up and read Tony' last paper - Bazant is declared to be his only competition, I do believe.

 

[DGM]

I know. Check the record - I have probably spent more effort than anyone trying to help him through his logical structure problems. And I wont even go near the "Book" because of the persistent false generalising of partial truths in the content and the self aggrandising style.

It often made me wonder if he was just so convinced the "official story" was wrong that he couldn't see how most of his work proves it. He's a classic case of, it's hard to see the forest through a magnifying glass.

 

[ozeco41]

Which is doubley as funny when you know that Tony Szamboti apparently doesn't think MT's theory exists. Look up and read Tony' last paper - Bazant is declared to be his only competition, I do believe.

Tony's position is even sillier.

Recall that "Missing Jolt" is based on Tony's misapplication of Bazant -- and a couple of consequential heresies. The Sz, Sz and J paper makes several interesting points.

First it rebuts "PCF" (Progressive Column Failure) which as misused in these discussions for years was a strawman anyway. So they killed a horse that was already dead.

But, second, it put forward a claim that Bazant's numbers were wrong. And their data is persuasive.

And:
The way they did it pulled the rug from under "Missing jolt" - nobody including Tony wants to discuss that aspect
PLUS
(Delicious irony) Their findings suggest that NIST's historic claim of "global collapse was inevitable" was wrong if based on Bazant & Zhou....wait for it....but is in fact proved correct for the reasons of mechanism explained by what M_T calls "ROOSD".

So NIST may well have been right for the wrong reasons.

BUT imagine the last seven years discussion esp 2007-8-9-10 if we hadn't had benefit of misapplied Bazant to keep us confused....

 

[ozeco41]

It often made me wonder if he was just so convinced the "official story" was wrong that he couldn't see how most of his work proves it. He's a classic case of, it's hard to see the forest through a magnifying glass.

Yes. The main area where I have tried multiple times to explain - three times on this forum and two I think on 911Forum - is just that forests v trees problem.

Specifically he denies that factors of evidence relied on in argument need to be both relevant and significant.

"relevant" always applies. "Significant" can vary in quantum from situation to situation. A related issue was his claims in a thread OP'ed here that NIST was wrong in "Key Areas" when he refused over many months to either identify the key areas OR to define what he meant by "key areas".

Forest v trees syndrome in a specific type of setting.

 

[DGM]

Yes. The main area where I have tried multiple times to explain - three times on this forum and two I think on 911Forum - is just that forests v trees problem.

Specifically he denies that factors of evidence relied on in argument need to be both relevant and significant.

"relevant" always applies. "Significant" can vary in quantum from situation to situation. A related issue was his claims in a thread OP'ed here that NIST was wrong in "Key Areas" when he refused over many months to either identify the key areas OR to define what he meant by "key areas".

Forest v trees syndrome in a specific type of setting.

If I recall you were always mentioning, "swamps and alligators".

I trend toward to big picture. Show me where you're going with something before you ask me to endure all the lead in.

 

[ozeco41]

If I recall you were always mentioning, "swamps and alligators".

I trend toward to big picture. Show me where you're going with something before you ask me to endure all the lead in.

 

[DGM]

[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/thumbup.gif[/qimg]

Case in point, A whistle blower just got jail time for disclosing G W Bush secrets. Not exactly the proof of an "inside job" "truthers" were hoping for.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...r-who-exposed-Bush-family-secrets-5542344.php

(sorry for the side track but, this is not worth it's own thread).