OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[Newtons Bit]

Crush front. Upper block doesn't change in height during the entire crush-down process.

Three zones, NB. Zones A, B and C. Zone C is called "upper block". "Upper block" never changes in height until "crush-up".

Even Heiwa was able to figure out that part 6 years ago.

Yes it does. See figure 2:

 

[Major_Tom]

Yes it does. See figure 2:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_16329544116e124fcb.png[/qimg]

That part is called the "crush-up phase", NB.

Crush-down, then crush up.

When crush down is complete, crush up begins.


Crush down is eq 12. Crush up is eq 17.


Are you grasping this?

 

[carlitos]

I'm just a moron looking at a chart, but "C" gets smaller in the middle column, yeah?

 

[Newtons Bit]

I'm just a moron looking at a chart, but "C" gets smaller in the middle column, yeah?

Yes. (To the smaller part, not the moron part). Also, while C remains constant between (a) and (b), S₀ compacts.

 

[LSSBB]

Yes. (To the smaller part, not the moron part). Also, while C remains constant between (a) and (b), S₀ compacts.

I think M_T needs to explain what he thinks ζ stands for, and what Finite Strain Theory means.

 

[Oystein]

@ Newtons Bit, carlitos and LSSBB,

M_T claimed, a few posts up, that "BV is really, really important to some of you".
Your arguing with M_T seems to be prima facie evidence that BV is indeed at least somewhat important to the three of you (as well as to M_T himself).
Can you clarify? In what way (towards what interest or purpose) is BV important to you, and how much so?

For example, does BV help you understand why or how the actual WTC towers collapsed to the ground? Or have you ever used BV to refute some 9/11 CT? What would change for you if you realized that something is wrong with eq. 12 and 17 after all?

In other words: Why do you debate this?

I would be very surprised if he did.

So you're agreeing with me now? I can't tell with you anymore.

 

[Newtons Bit]

That part is called the "crush-up phase", NB.

Crush-down, then crush up.

When crush down is complete, crush up begins.


Crush down is eq 12. Crush up is eq 17.


Are you grasping this?

I'm referring to everything above "z" as the upper block. C is treated as rigid by Bazant, but B is not.

 

[carlitos]

Boredom. I try like hell not to debate this, but I have a case of "someone is wrong on the internet" syndrome.

MT is a fascinating case. He has a website hosted by a (presumably defunct) suburban-Chicago area printing company, where he has written a "book" about the "propagation" of the World Trade Center buildings collapse. Every study he critiques appears to agree that, once these buildings start collapsing, there was nothing to stop them. Therefore studying "propagation" is akin to counting the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. Why do this? I don't know, but it's somehow fascinating.

I have thought about "BV" for about 0 seconds of my life.

 

[Newtons Bit]

@ Newtons Bit, carlitos and LSSBB,

M_T claimed, a few posts up, that "BV is really, really important to some of you".
Your arguing with M_T seems to be prima facie evidence that BV is indeed at least somewhat important to the three of you (as well as to M_T himself).
Can you clarify? In what way (towards what interest or purpose) is BV important to you, and how much so?

For example, does BV help you understand why or how the actual WTC towers collapsed to the ground? Or have you ever used BV to refute some 9/11 CT? What would change for you if you realized that something is wrong with eq. 12 and 17 after all?

In other words: Why do you debate this?

He's inventing a straw man in that regard. BV is not important to me, and I don't use it to explain the collapse to others, or use it to understand the collapse for myself. I don't think I ever have. I have used BZ to explain the limit-case of collapse, i.e. that even if the columns were fully engaged in stopping the upper block from falling, that the towers would still collapse. It is quite useful in that respect.

 

[LSSBB]

@ Newtons Bit, carlitos and LSSBB,

M_T claimed, a few posts up, that "BV is really, really important to some of you".
Your arguing with M_T seems to be prima facie evidence that BV is indeed at least somewhat important to the three of you (as well as to M_T himself).
Can you clarify? In what way (towards what interest or purpose) is BV important to you, and how much so?

For example, does BV help you understand why or how the actual WTC towers collapsed to the ground? Or have you ever used BV to refute some 9/11 CT? What would change for you if you realized that something is wrong with eq. 12 and 17 after all?

In other words: Why do you debate this?

BV is not important to me. M_T explaining his own theory on an equal mathematical basis is.
Otherwise, what's the point?

 

[Oystein]

Thanks, gentlemen.


@M_T: Looks like you made a false claim when you wrote "BV is really, really important to some of you"

Care to comment? Or retract?



@ carlitos: Same here - I haven't even read more than three or four paragraphs of BV, never held the graphic and the equations next to each other to figure out what letter means what, and I definitely never checked the math, let alone use it!
This debate has all the qualities of a particularly meaningless railway accident.

@ NB: Yes, BZ is usefull in its simplicity, and all the rest isn't.

@ LSSBB: Yeah, I wish he would!

 

[JSanderO]

Thanks, gentlemen.


@M_T: Looks like you made a false claim when you wrote "BV is really, really important to some of you"

Care to comment? Or retract?



@ carlitos: Same here - I haven't even read more than three or four paragraphs of BV, never held the graphic and the equations next to each other to figure out what letter means what, and I definitely never checked the math, let alone use it!
This debate has all the qualities of a particularly meaningless railway accident.

@ NB: Yes, BZ is usefull in its simplicity, and all the rest isn't.

@ LSSBB: Yeah, I wish he would!

Who cares and why is this important?

 

[DGM]

Who cares and why is this important?

It's really important to M_T. In fact I'd call it an obsession. To me, not so much (bordering on don't care).

 

[Oystein]

Who cares and why is this important?

It isn't, but apparently, M_T is determined to not progress with his ROOSD model (say, add a mathematical formulation thereof) unless everyone here confesses their sins with regard to BV eq. 12+17 and formally denounces and condemns former posters like Dave Rogers or R.Mackey because of their sins Re:BV.

Trying to convince M_T that really nobody thinks BV is important, so he can drop it and move on.

 

[LSSBB]

Who cares and why is this important?

Generally, M_T's ROOSD theory is only important to me if M_T shows it is important.

I did bring ROOSD up as a counterexample to Tony Szamboti's assertion that there was no other theory of collapse besides his own and Bazant. Were M_T published, I would have had a stronger argument against Tony, however that particular strawman by Tony was pretty obvious, anyway. If M_T wants to go after someone obsessed with BV, BZ et Al., Tony should be his target, not people who aren't beholden to column impact centered models.

 

[Newtons Bit]

It isn't, but apparently, M_T is determined to not progress with his ROOSD model (say, add a mathematical formulation thereof) unless everyone here confesses their sins with regard to BV eq. 12+17 and formally denounces and condemns former posters like Dave Rogers or R.Mackey because of their sins Re:BV.

Trying to convince M_T that really nobody thinks BV is important, so he can drop it and move on.

So my involvement here is preventing "The Twoof" from being uncovered? And all I have to do is not admit I'm wrong about something? Challenge accepted!

The NWO needs to pay me more...

 

[Major_Tom]

Trying to convince M_T that really nobody thinks BV is important, so he can drop it and move on.

Page 2 of this thread:

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.

I wrote that in response to the cluelessness that was evident in the posts in the the first 2 pages.


Your posting history since then:

OOS Collapse Model
Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world
Bazant's crush-down/crush-up model


The degree of insults levelled at anyone who disagreed with you were surreal.

As of October 20, 2014, only one regular poster, Ozeco, could find and admit to mistakes in BV.


This documents a true collective insanity on this subject. Just recently the group was still collectively referring to BV as a "limiting case". (page 44 of this thread onward). All active or passive regulars were participants in that insanity except Ozeco. Not one regular poster is on record attempting to correct it or disagree with it.

It was more than being merely anti-intellectual. It was a hatred of any critical thinking toward BV that deviated from the group that persisted here passionately for more than 4 years.


This is a world that you have helped create, not me.

 

[beachnut]

This is October, 2014. Can anyone besides Ozeco spot any mistakes in BV, BL, or BLGB. This same question was asked about a month ago a number of times and nobody except Ozeco was able to do so.

How quickly he forgets. Two years ago, on 7 June 2012, I wrote:

On my first reading of BV, I found an obvious math error in one of their numbered equations, which led me to find about half a dozen related errors when I read the paper more closely. It turned out that none of those errors were significant, but they reduced my confidence in the quality of the paper and in its peer review process. I'm not inclined to assume the authors got everything right.

That said, I think most of the criticisms that have been levelled in this subforum against their crush-up/crush-down calculations have come from people who understand neither the physics nor the math. So far as I can tell, which isn't very far, that aspect of their papers may be largely correct for their model. As ozeco41 and others have said, however, their model may apply to the WTC collapses in only the most general of terms, if indeed at all. I am not competent to express an opinion on that.

The comedy continues:

It isn't about beliefs 4 years ago. It is about a blind incompetence which has existed for over 4 years, well-documented within this thread, and continues today.

Agreed.

If you click on that link, you will find links that document the blind incompetence. The last of those links takes you to the following remarks, which I posted on 6 January 2011:

That is interesting, I don't think it will stop the open loop Quixotic quest to beat Bazant's work into small enough packets of BS for the bit bucket.
Great posts, enjoy the math.

He's inventing a straw man in that regard. BV is not important to me, and I don't use it to explain the collapse to others, or use it to understand the collapse for myself. I don't think I ever have. I have used BZ to explain the limit-case of collapse, i.e. that even if the columns were fully engaged in stopping the upper block from falling, that the towers would still collapse. It is quite useful in that respect.

Oh, now you throw our hero under the bus. ... lol

Major Tom is using "the best existing lens though which to examine" these issues, be interesting to see what it filters out to.
Excellent post. Will it change the "MT world".

 

[Oystein]

Page 2 of this thread:

Your posting history since then:

OOS Collapse Model
Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world
Bazant's crush-down/crush-up model

2010
2010
2010

As of October 20, 2014, only one regular poster, Ozeco, could find and admit to mistakes in BV.

I are more interested in the mistakes of M_T, cuz that (ROOSD) is the topic here.

This documents a true collective insanity on this subject. Just recently the group was still collectively referring to BV as a "limiting case". (page 44 of this thread onward).

I searched for the string "limit" on page 44 and found it used only by ozeco41 as "limits of the applicability of Bazant".

All active or passive regulars were participants in that insanity except Ozeco. Not one regular poster is on record attempting to correct it or disagree with it.

And why would that be imortant to us?

It was more than being merely anti-intellectual. It was a hatred of any critical thinking toward BV that deviated from the group that persisted here passionately for more than 4 years.

This is a world that you have helped create, not me.

On that same page 44 I found this:

...
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.
...

Is true today as ever.


How about we debate mathematical models that apply to the WTC and help to refute (or support) 9/11 CTs?
It would help to that end if you realized that labelling a section of your book "mathematical approach to ROOSD" is misleading when in fact it does NOT contain a "mathematical approach to ROOSD".

 

[Major_Tom]

I'm referring to everything above "z" as the upper block. C is treated as rigid by Bazant, but B is not.

Zone B consists of material entirely from the lower portion of the building. It is the accretied form of the lower portion until the crush front reaches ground level.