OOS Collapse Propagation Model
- Thread starter Major_Tom
- Start date
- Status
Nice to know that a few comments I posted four years ago have been effective at keeping the truth of WTC controlled demolition from the world for that entire period, and still remain effective today. I expect shill payment bonuses for Newtons Bit, R Mackey, Dave Rogers and me. Given the cost-effectiveness demonstrated, the NWO can afford to be generous about such things.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Once again I remind NWO shills that payment for services are meted out in Ameros. Further, that although they are accepted at NWO canteens around the world they are, as yet, not legal tender in the general marketplace, and that directive NWO-ERP7a specifically explains that Ameros must never be displayed in public until said directive is lifted.
The OOS model has been repeatedly misrepresented throughout the thread. The written record on the collapses in the form of Seffen and Bazant, both published, has been smeared beyond recognition.within the meme-based environment of this thread. There is no capacity to critically examine BV, BL, BLGB, or Seffen within this environment.
Does Seffen make physical predictions about the propagation of the actual WTC collapse front from his paper by using eq 12?
Yes.
Pg 16, 17:
What does Seffen predict about the acceleration of the collapse front?
Is it possible to fact-check the dynamic predictions of Seffen using information within the OOS propagation model? Absolutely.
Last edited:
So Seffen is using his eq 12 to make predictions about the actual WTC 1 collapse front displacement, velocity, and acceleration as a function of time. Can a comparison be drawn between BV eq 12 and Seffen's eq 12?
BV:
Bazant states in BV:
"Eqs. (12) and (17) show that Fc(z) can be evaluated from
precise monitoring of motion history z(t) and y(t), provided
that m(z) and lamda(z) are known. A millisecond accuracy for
z(t) or y(t) would be required. Such information can, in theory,
be extracted from a high-speed camera record of the collapse.
Approximate information could be extracted from a
regular video of collapse, but only for the first few seconds
of collapse because later all of the moving part of the WTC
towers became shrouded in a cloud of dust and smoke (the visible
lower edge of the cloud of dust and debris expelled from
the tower was surely not the collapse front but was moving
ahead of it, by some unknown distance)."
BV eq 12 is a second order differential equation in one variable, z.
A differential equation like this is merely a relationship between the displacement, velocity, and acceleration of an object or a point on an object. From these relations one tries to find the displacement z(t).
The displacement of what point? In Seffen's eq 12 the variable maps the collapse front of WTC1.
In BV eq 12 there are 2 dynamic points along the collapsing building that can be measured: the crush front and the roofline. z(t) maps the crush front.
From the BV quote above, does Bazant consider the identification of the crush front or the measurement of the displacement of the WTC crush front to be possible? No. According to him, the shroud of dust and smoke blocked moving parts of the WTC towers, like the collapse front, from view.
BV:
Bazant states in BV:
"Eqs. (12) and (17) show that Fc(z) can be evaluated from
precise monitoring of motion history z(t) and y(t), provided
that m(z) and lamda(z) are known. A millisecond accuracy for
z(t) or y(t) would be required. Such information can, in theory,
be extracted from a high-speed camera record of the collapse.
Approximate information could be extracted from a
regular video of collapse, but only for the first few seconds
of collapse because later all of the moving part of the WTC
towers became shrouded in a cloud of dust and smoke (the visible
lower edge of the cloud of dust and debris expelled from
the tower was surely not the collapse front but was moving
ahead of it, by some unknown distance)."
BV eq 12 is a second order differential equation in one variable, z.
A differential equation like this is merely a relationship between the displacement, velocity, and acceleration of an object or a point on an object. From these relations one tries to find the displacement z(t).
The displacement of what point? In Seffen's eq 12 the variable maps the collapse front of WTC1.
In BV eq 12 there are 2 dynamic points along the collapsing building that can be measured: the crush front and the roofline. z(t) maps the crush front.
From the BV quote above, does Bazant consider the identification of the crush front or the measurement of the displacement of the WTC crush front to be possible? No. According to him, the shroud of dust and smoke blocked moving parts of the WTC towers, like the collapse front, from view.
Last edited:
Go ahead, show the proof. Explain in great detail, don't leave out the math.
Prove it. Show your work, your work.
This is a childish post... and adds absolutely nothing to the discussion of OOS propagation.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
How so and by whom? gross misrepresentation or minor?
.... and thus ends your discussion of your own work, and back once again to discussing Bazant and Seffen.
I thought your book's purpose was to discuss what you believe DID happen, and which many on this forum agreed DID happen, not a protracted debate on perceptions of the works of others.
Its been pointed out many times now that many here do believe that internal destruction from falling mass took out the floor systems leaving core and perimeter to fail due to lack of support (to paraphrase it quite a bit).
Why do you have such a hard time accepting "I agree with you" for an answer?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
I think the point is, JSO, that neither does either of the last two M_T posts.
NoahFence
Banned
His entire body of work consists of "look how right I am".
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
How do you think the coordinate frame of the collapse front relates to the coordinate frame of the ground? What do you think the placement of 'm' means with regards to the application of the time differential dt, in the crush-up vs. crush-down equations?
Lighten up. The point is that people have essentially been agreeing with M_T about collapse propagation for years now, yet still he hammers away without giving a clue as to his purpose in posting here.
It might be that with a certain degree (100%?) or certain type (blind acceptance of his word?) of agreement he'll move his timeline back and claim "therefore CD". Or he might not.
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
True, so why did you post it.
So?
Like I wrote earlier, I strongly recommend approaching analysis of the BV, BL, and BLGB papers through the following 7 perspectives:
1) Direct comparision between Bazant and Seffen methods and their key equations of motion (Seffen eq 12 compared to Bazant eqs 12 and 17).
2)) A basic study of 1-dimensional stacked system collision interactions with a variety of parameters altered linked here. This gives one a simple, practical sense of 1-dimensional multiple body interactions, like the type described in BV eqs 12 and 17, and the possible varieties of mechanical movements that can result from them.
3) Direct comparison of claims within BV to the actual collapse propagation rates which were recorded after the 2007-2008 Bazant papers were written.
4) Quotes by David Benson demonstrating how he understood the relationship between BV eqs 12, 17 and the actual collapses of WTC1, 2 linked here
5) Statements by Bazant in BL (the closure to BV) and BLGB demonstrating how he understood the relationship between BV eqs 12, 17 and the actual collapses of WTC1, 2.
6) Comparison of statements about WTC1 and 2 made within BV, BL, and BLGB directly with the visual record of events through the lens of the most accurate mappings of the WTC1, 2 collapse behavior (available in parts 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 of my book).
7) Practical comparison of BV eqs 12 and 17 and Seffen eq 12 to video records of Verinage demolitions.
I am showing you a way to look at BV eq 12 through perspective #1.
One more thing I'd like to mention about Seffen eq 12. What does Seffen believe his eq 12 represents? He writes his answer directly under the equation on p 13:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
What does this have to do with your "book" about ROOSD?
Do you plan on explaining this some day?
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
Or, we could save a ton of time and just read the introduction to B&V...
All this is explained by Bazant in a single section of BV
The variables, parameters and assumptions used to derive BV eq 12 are all described in a single section titled, "One-Dimensional Continuum Model for Crushing Front Propagation", reproduced below:
BV figure 2:
The coordinate which follows the collapse front z(t) is explicitly defined.
The variation of the mass in building regions A and B as the building propagates downward as a function of z is explained clearly within this section.
The 'placement of m'?
BV eq 12 is just an application of one of the most basic equations in Newtonian mechanics: dp/dt = F where p and F are vectors. In one dimension it is just
dp/dt = F where p = mv
Hence d(m*dz/dt)/dt = F while the mass is a function of propagation displacement z.
The bracketed term being differentiated with respect to time in BV eq 12 is called the 'momentum' of the moving building portions A and B in the Bazant propagation model. The term with a lamda is a mass correction term for the percentage of mass falling outside the perimeter of the lower building portion.
Last edited:
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
So what, in your own words, are the assumptions made about the time behavior of mass in the crush-up direction, vs. mass in the crush-down direction?
Coversely, what are the assumptions about mass in ROOSD, in both directions?
- Status