OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[ozeco41]

Ozzie,

This may be a minor point or just quibbling about words. I see the movement inwards like this.

The facade columns had axial loads from above...¹ that was the MAJOR load by far...² The they had some APPLIED loads via the truss seats on the core side of the column. THIS WAS AN ASYMMETRICAL load from the get go.³
So if you overload the facade... past the yield strength it WILL buckle...⁴ And which way would it go? As it is "restrained on the core side" it would have to push the slabs out of the way...⁵ Or if the slabs broke or maybe.. maybe sagged they would exert some lateral force... in the core direction.⁶

1, 2 & 4 Are true
3 Probably - provided you define which loads you mean and "ASYMMETRICAL"
5 You are speculating about something that may or may not have happened. Go back to the starting point fact - there was IB. So even if some floors had to be pushed there was more inwards force pulling in than outwards resistance. NET inwards.
6 Maybe - but it raises the same point as 5 the NET force was inwards because the buckling went inwards. So the debate is not about factors that did not exist OR were overwhelmed. NET force WAS inwards.

BUT if a there was a break in the floor and the floor was hanging from the façade...wouldn't this junk of floor pull the façade which was buckling toward the core?⁷
How can we determine which is was? ⁸ Sagging trusses or hanging floor slabs? ⁹ That is if these two cause produce the same inward buckling direction?¹⁰Weren't there some section of floors which could be seen dropping?¹¹

7 Could well be true. BUT take care that you are drifting into speculations which derail from the original point which I answered. And chasing details which do not change the validity of my explanation and don't enhance your understanding of that single point. The IB was the result of two main factors. Vertical loads and some form of NET inwards pull. Recall that I identified sagging as probably the main inward pull and other methods as secondary. You are speculating about the "other methods". And - as I said in the earlier post - they don't change the conclusion.
8 I doubt we ever can or will. Doesn't faze me because the explanation doesn't change. I'm aware that you would prefer to know the details. The alternate is accept reasoned explanations that are valid without all the details. (BTW that is sort of one of those "memes" that M_T refers to. Maybe we can start a list for M_Tom? The "cannot make decisions unless we know all the details meme" - engineers and accountants tend to fall for that one. Probably it is a "left brain" characteristic. )
9 See first two sentences of response to 8
10 Same answer as several previous - the NET result was inwards. Independent of your preference to know how the bits added up to that "NET inwards".
11 Same response - true but doesn't change the argument - it fits within it.

What is the force on the trampoline when some one jumps on it? It's a kind of sagging but it's not from heat... but deformity from impact.

Interesting speculation but do you intend it to add anything relevant to the point under discussion?

IB resulted from two main forces - vertical loads and a NET inwards pull which took the buckling past the critical point. And the floor sagging or other inwards forces did not have to cause the full extent of IB - merely start it off in the inwards direction. Past the critical point axial loads alone would continue the buckling until some other limit comes into play. And we don't need to go to that next lot of complications.

 

[Oystein]

...

In post 2895 I repeated a question directly addressed to you. Allow me to repeat:

Can you please be clear:
Do you claim that I, Oystein, have expressed strong views of any kind over BV and/or BL?

 

[Oystein]

Nothing you've said in those responses addresses what (and when and where) I "rested" on BV.

I gather that you want to continue to insist that I did so, without providing any evidence that I did. Very courteous indeed; I should be ashamed.

The truth is that the only time I have referred to BV at all in this thread (or, as far as I can recall, any others) is near the beginning, when Major_Tom asked a question specifically about BV ("what did Bazant mean by...?"). I responded with an explanation (over the course of a few posts) that the model in BV was based on the model in BZ, that the model in BZ was abstracted and idealized with limiting-case assumptions, and that Bazant had explicitly stated as much.

Major_Tom subsequently and repeatedly used that response to accuse me of misrepresenting BV as applying to the real world, the very opposite of what I actually said. This is obvious if you merely read the quotes of mine that Major_Tom keeps spamming in this thread. To conclude otherwise, as you've just done and have been doing for years, you'd have to take Major_Tom's accusations at face value, and just kind of glance at the quotes and say, "hmm, Myriad did mention BV, I guess Major_Tom must be right." That's why I accused you of uncritically parroting Major_Tom, and why I claim the evidence still points that way.

If you're as reasonable and courteous as you claim to be, show me where and how I've "rested on BV", or retract that, please.

I am curious to read ozeco41's reply to this.

 

[Major_Tom]

A question left unanswered:



Can you please be clear:
Do you claim that I, Oystein, have expressed strong views of any kind over BV and/or BL?

Here is a record of how participating posters defended the Bazant papers BV and BL from May, 2010 to the present time, a period which spans over 5 years:


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



After starting this thread, the BV and BL papers were defended from the very first page. That is a lot of historic revisionism for people who now claim they aren't interested in the papers.

The large majority of the participants most probably have never read the papers they were defending.

At any time any individual can be wrong and can persist in being wrong, but that is expected and as a social phenomenon is not reflective of anything. But I am interested in how group subcultures perceive the written and visual records of the collapse events. What was witnessed was and is a group phenomenon.

Those threads show group perception and problem-solving in action.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Likewise, Bazant is a human being. His perceptions can be limited and he can be wrong in how he perceives the WTC collapses. That is fine. But what his papers BV, BL, and BLGB show is how the subculture of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics relates to the WTC collapse events. The papers are a reflection on the editors, the reviewers, and the readers of the journal.

Therefore his later papers and the other papers like that of Seffen, which were read, reviewed, and went unchallenged up to the present time reflect upon the subculture that the Journal of Engineering Mechanics serves.



In both cases, within the JREF/ISF environment and the larger debunking community which it serves, and within the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, these enduring incorrect beliefs are very good examples of vulnerabilities within their abilities to review and fact-check technical information.

And as for the subculture of the NIST, they, too, can easily manufacture and propagate incorrect technical information. So there is a vulnerability within that subculture also and within those who read and review the information they give to the public.


Oystein, I am not interested in you as an individual in this sense. Your recent posts at The 9/11 Forum seem well-researched and I have nothing against you personally, no matter how many times you feel the need to lash out at me. I am interested in the larger debunking environment in which you post. I watch how the environment perceives technical literature on the collapses and the visual record of collapse events.

The same for the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. The same for the NIST. There is a huge, gaping vulnerability at the heart of these systems with respect to the WTC collapses.

Richard Gage certainly doesn't help with his own poor perceptions, but he cannot be the reason why these other subcultures have recorded the collapse events so poorly.

I record the vulnerabilities and the breakdowns within these subcultures. This naturally offends people who for some reason feel the need to represent them as being more perfect and coherent than they really are.

 

[Major_Tom]

The truth is that the only time I have referred to BV at all in this thread (or, as far as I can recall, any others) is near the beginning, when Major_Tom asked a question specifically about BV ("what did Bazant mean by...?"). I responded with an explanation (over the course of a few posts) that the model in BV was based on the model in BZ, that the model in BZ was abstracted and idealized with limiting-case assumptions, and that Bazant had explicitly stated as much.

And then you reappeared to defend your responses, and seem to be defending them still.


Myriad, have you ever read BV or the closure to BV, which is BL. I see no evidence in any of your comments that you have actually read either paper.

 

[beachnut]

Here is a record of how participating posters defended the Bazant papers BV and BL from May, 2010 to the present time, a period which spans over 5 years:
...

Wow, you make up BS about how no one has the collape right, yet they beat you to the punch by years. Robertson understands the collapse before it collapsed. Thus, a study of the collapse is BS.

Here is your record

These are just some of the factors which, when studied in depth, show that the supposed "gravity-driven collapse" is a mere illusion to mask an intentional act so barbaric, so inhumane and morally impoverished that the fabled characteristics of Satan come to mind. ....

And a contempt and ignorance of models/science which has no bound on the nonsense.

Your NIST WTC1 collapse scenario is a fiction. Your Bazant papers BV, BL and BLGB are fictions.

You will never review these critically.

Instead, you witch-hunt anyone who pops you bubble of illusion.

If you were a critical thinker, you would correctly criticize NIST and BV, BL and BLGB instead of trying to get me kicked out for posting math without the proper permit.

Projection on the witch-hunt...

Here is a record -
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/MajorTom/

Why, when and how did you breakaway from the CD fantasy? or have you, the model does not have much of a conclusion.

 

[Myriad]

And then you reappeared to defend your responses, and seem to be defending them still.

Yes, when you post lies about what I've said I defend myself. Odd, that.

ETA:

You mix the collapse progression model in BV, BL and BLGB with the term " assumptions most favorable to collapse arrest", a term from the BZ argument.

Sorry, that is incomprehensible. I mixed a model with a term? How does one do that?

I did assert that the BV model incorporates the assumptions of all impacts being onto lower columns, and all columns buckling, from BZ. You have not shown that is wrong, by any reference to any portion of BV stating or suggesting otherwise. I've concluded that you are unable to.
I also asserted that those are indeed assumptions favorable to collapse arrest, as they maximize the energy absorbed in column deformation. You have not shown that is wrong, by any coherent form of analysis (e.g. by showing that those assumptions do not maximize the energy absorbed). I've concluding that you are unable to.

I told you that very clearly in May. 2010. You ignored me and kept doing it until the present.

I did not ignore you. I examined your claim that I was mistaken about the assumptions in BV, found no evidence to support it, and when you did not offer any such evidence to support it when requested, I rejected it. It is false. You are wrong.

You and Dave Rogers, R Mackey, and Newton's Bit made minced-meat of these papers and you still spread the same misunderstandings today.

It is either intentional or unintentional, but it is a deceptive mess all the same.

And there's the lie again.

One great example:

This is indeed an example of something I've written. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a great example, but it's reasonably concise and informative.

It is not an example of any error, because you have not pointed out any erroneous claim in it, and I've concluded that you are unable to. It does include information from two different papers, which you seem to have some kind of objection to, but that is not my problem as there is nothing objectionable about doing so.

Why do I consider the 4 of you to blame? Because the little sheep follow the big sheep. The 4 of you pose as big sheep, leading the flock astray.

If you didn't keep repeating the same mistakes, the others probably wouldn't either.

Exactly wrong. If you got rid of me, a dozen others would rise up to take my place.

(Seriously -- pose as a big sheep? Can you give me one example of any credential or advanced expertise I have claimed regarding the issues under discussion? Based on past experience I'm going to conclude in advance that you are unable to.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Wow, you make up BS about how no one has the collape right, yet they beat you to the punch by years. Robertson understands the collapse before it collapsed. Thus, a study of the collapse is BS.

Here is your record

And a contempt and ignorance of models/science which has no bound on the nonsense.
Projection on the witch-hunt...

Here is a record -
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/MajorTom/

Why, when and how did you breakaway from the CD fantasy? or have you, the model does not have much of a conclusion.

M T has done mapping that was interesting and could be of value, but most of the early theories were floor collapses, similar to those that occured in the North ridge Earth Quake,
In 1994, Shortly before 2001 and still being studied during the clean up of the towers.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The problem is MT has no Idea that the claim his observations falsify Banzant are false because he misconscrews the purpose of Banzant is describing the actual events when it clearly is not.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The problem is MT has no Idea that the claim his observations falsify Banzant are false because he misconscrews the purpose of Banzant is describing the actual events when it clearly is not.

Careful, he may add you to the Brotherhood of Big Sheep.

Dave

 

[WilliamSeger]

And then you reappeared to defend your responses, and seem to be defending them still.

What I see in most of the threads that you keep linking to is a fairly common understanding that the BV model is only a theoretical model. The "meme" that you keep trying to manufacture here -- that the "debunker subculture" is "defending" the BV model because they are in thrall to the brilliance of Bazant and they have been mislead into believing that's what really happened -- appears to be mainly (actually, almost exclusively) the result of your own misunderstandings about what is being said.

As a theoretical model, the crush down/up in BV is perfectly defensible: If the forces required to destroy the lower block are the same as the forces required to destroy the upper block, then the lower block must go first. That's because the forces at the crush-up front are strictly less than the forces at the crush-down front (because of the added mass and inertia of the rubble layer), and the forces at the crush-down front cannot exceed the exact amount required for destruction. Simple, no?

Clearly, if the forces required to destroy the upper block are less than for the lower -- oh, say for example, it's not happening in 1D and the block is tilted so the forces aren't parallel with the framing axis -- then all bets are off; it might or might not get destroyed, and predicting which in advance is no trivial task. Nowhere in any Bazant paper do I see any indication that Bazant doesn't understand that, or that he was making any attempt to model that sort of behavior. Nor does it make any significant difference with what's happening at the crush-down front, theoretical or real world.

What I see being defended in the threads you keep citing is defending against any implication that the BZ limit-case energy argument is not valid. The BV model is completely irrelevant to BZ and to the reasons that NIST said total collapse was unavoidable. Since you never seem to say what you're really getting at, but it was fairly well known that you were looking for evidence of CD and/or some reason to discredit Bazant and NIST, those defensive replies are understandable.

If you don't think Bazant's model is useful for anything, well okay, but so what? Seriously, so what? It's all well and good that you don't want anybody to confuse BV with "what really happened," but your "debunker meme" obsession is getting annoying -- especially when you misrepresent what people have said; you can't answer the "so what" question; and you've completely ignored several issues raised here regarding your own OP asking for feedback on your "model."

 

[Newtons Bit]

It's almost like Page 1 never happened...

 

[Oystein]

Here is a record of how participating posters

This does not answer my question, which was:
Can you please be clear:
Do you claim that I, Oystein, have expressed strong views of any kind over BV and/or BL?

...
The large majority of the participants most probably have never read the papers

I very openly admit that I never really read BV, BL, BLBxyz with sufficient care and scrutiny. And yet, you reply to and addressed me, and insinuated that I somehow am among a lot that expressed strong views of any kind over BV and/or BL.
Hence my request for clarification:
Do you claim that I, Oystein, have expressed strong views of any kind over BV and/or BL?

This is a Yes/No question.

Please answer clearly, starting your answer with a Yes or a No.
If No, that is sufficient. No further words needed.
If Yes, the only further words I'd need would be a citation that backs up the claim. A link to a post by me, and a quote.

...
Oystein, I am not interested in you as an individual in this sense.

Nor are you, I presume, interested in Myriad as an individual in this sense?
Or, for that matter, Dave Rogers?
What about RMackey?
pgimeno?

You prefer to lump us all together and make global claims, right?
Like "this group expresses strong views over BV and BL", right?
I am part of this group, right?
So it doesn't matter if I, personally, express strong views over BV and BL; my group membership entitles you to insinuate the global claim of "expresses strong views over BV and BL", isn't that so?
It doesn't matter that I never expressed strong views over BV or BL.
It doesn't matter that Myriad never expressed any of the claims over BV or BL attributed to him - I guess he is part of the subculture, and thus guilty by association?
And perhaps Dave Rogers never expressed these views, but hey, he's part of the group.
pgimeno has observed that he has been badly misrepresented - but I guess that's ok, because, as part of the group, pgimeno engages in groupthink - do I understand this correctly?

Your recent posts at The 9/11 Forum seem well-researched and I have nothing against you personally, no matter how many times you feel the need to lash out at me.

You treat me with utter disrespect. Why? Because you speak about me, reduce me to a lab mouse, are "not interested in

as an individual".

I am interested in the larger debunking environment in which you post.

You will continue to misrepresent my position, and apply insinuated false global claims about me, if you don't get around to developing an interest in the individuals that this "group" is comprised of.

Get off the high horse. You are not a psychologist. You simply suck at this sort of analysis.

I watch how the environment perceives technical literature on the collapses and the visual record of collapse events.
...

Your own perception of what this "environment" perceives sucks. Why? Because you don't care for the individual argument.

I record the vulnerabilities and the breakdowns within these subcultures. This naturally offends people who for some reason feel the need to represent them as being more perfect and coherent than they really are.

I think it's really the other way around: You perceive (or at least describe) the "group" as more homogenous, more coherent, than it really is.

 

[DGM]

The problem is MT has no Idea that the claim his observations falsify Banzant are false because he misconscrews the purpose of Banzant is describing the actual events when it clearly is not.

Never going to happen. MT is the chosen one where all understanding of the visual evidence of 9/11 is his only to understand. The "so what" question? How dare anyone ask this of the chosen one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Never going to happen. MT is the chosen one where all understanding of the visual evidence of 9/11 is his only to understand. The "so what" question? How dare anyone ask this of the chosen one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seems true but the whole point of the Banzantian papers was to educate young gullible engineering
Students, that it is a waste of time, trying to engineer a tall steel frame building to arrest or collapse once it has begun.
You have to build in safe guards to keep the unthinkable from happening.
Because buildings do fall, in fact I know the date by which all the buildings built by man on earth will fall.
It is a certainty all buildings will fall before that date.

 

[Bravin Neff]

Richard Gage certainly doesn't help with his own poor perceptions, but he cannot be the reason why these other subcultures have recorded the collapse events so poorly. I record the vulnerabilities and the breakdowns within these subcultures.

The JREF/ISF debunking crowd certainly doesn't help with its tough-on-truthers style, but that cannot be the reason you insist your mission is that of the anthropologist, recording "debunking subculture memes" and insisting you are merely documenting things that to any casual observer are so forlorn, the real motives emerge between the lines despite the pretense.

Frankly I find that to be the real puzzle - why your motivation is given such a pass. The bottom line is that a few folks hurt your feelings, didn't they? Someone owes you an apology, don't they? Probably Ryan Mackey does, doesn't he? It seems the list of folks that ought to address your grievances is the same you constantly cite under the guise of some "meme" they allegedly got wrong, "memes" so trivial they cannot possibly warrant the deep anthropological mission of debunking-subculture-meme-documenter you pretend to be on.

I propose an M_T apology thread. I think it will help everyone.

 

[DGM]

Seems true but the whole point of the Banzantian papers was to educate young gullible engineering
Students, that it is a waste of time, trying to engineer a tall steel frame building to arrest or collapse once it has begun.
You have to build in safe guards to keep the unthinkable from happening.
Because buildings do fall, in fact I know the date by which all the buildings built by man on earth will fall.
It is a certainty all buildings will fall before that date.

You forgot to put the appropriate smilie.

Would this one work..............

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

You forgot to put the appropriate smilie.

Would this one work..............

Yes that one works fine .

 

[Major_Tom]

I very openly admit that I never really read BV, BL, BLBxyz with sufficient care and scrutiny. And yet, you reply to and addressed me, and insinuated that I somehow am among a lot that expressed strong views of any kind over BV and/or BL.
Hence my request for clarification:
Do you claim that I, Oystein, have expressed strong views of any kind over BV and/or BL?

Many in the threads linked earlier. Here is one in which you repeat pretty much every empty meme on the subject in a few short sentences:

You replied to the following question in which Bazant is answering a known truther asking about the WTC towers specifically:

6) Or how about this from BL:

"Blocks C and A can, of course, deform. Yet, contrary to
the discusser’s claim, they may be treated in calculations as
rigid because their elastic deformations are about 1,000 times
smaller than the deformations at the crushing front."

This is how Dr Bazant justifies the survival of the upper block until reaching earth in BL

Do you honestly believe this claim? (Do you hallucinate upper blocks, too?)


You gave the following answer in which you repeat pretty much every empty meme on the subject in a few short sentences::

Why are you asking for a belief? How would an answer further our quest to find the best answers to the ultimate questions at hand?
BL contains the assumptions, the formulas and the math to show that the upper block would indeed stand a very good chance of staying largely assembled until crush-down is done.
I know way too little about structural engineering to fully assess B&L's assumptions, formulas and math.
I do understand however that the discussion that Bazant replied to was done very incompetently by an amateur.

It doesn't matter if tfk, WDC, I or you believe Bazant or not. What it takes is for you to show that
- the assumptions aren't well conceived,
- the formulas are wrong or n/a,
- or the math is faulty


To answer the question "Do you honestly believe this claim?" my tentative answer is: Yes, I do believe BL's claims. Why? Because I have seen no competent argument against it, and I am too much of an amateur to argue with experts on the matter.

Pretty much every vulnerability I have been pointing out is demonstrated by you within this comment.


!) Blind appeal to authority
2) Expressing views on 2 papers you have never read
3) Literal interpretation of 'upper block'
4) Literal interpretation of 'lower block'
5) Belief that Bazant shows within BL that "the upper block would indeed stand a very good chance of staying largely assembled until crush-down is done."


By agreeing to this, you agreed with the Bazant statement from BL, when asked about the WTC towers specifically, that the 'upper block' and the 'lower block' can deform, but they may be treated as rigid because their elastic deformations are about 1000 times smaller than than the deformations at the crushing front.





You made that statement right along side TFK who has also expressed multiple times that he also took the concept of 'upper block' and 'lower block' quite literally as they are applied to the WTC towers.



Femr2 also asked, on the same page just before you commented:

A simple set of questions were asked...


Tom, do you believe in the concept of crush down, then crush up?

Please explain to us little people why Bazant is correct when he claims that significant crush up is impossible before crush down is complete.

Is he wrong? Why or why not?


Nice simple answers please.

'Passionate' is actually a weak word when applied to people posting right along side you in that same thread. Some of those people were impassioned to the point of lunacy.

 

[Major_Tom]

Yes, when you post lies about what I've said I defend myself. Odd, that.

ETA:

Myriad, have you ever read BV or the closure to BV, which is BL? I see no evidence within your comments that you ever read them.