OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[ozeco41]

"Points Where ozeco41 and Oystein Have Reached Explicit Stated Agreement"
(Excuse the presumptive heading - see later in the post for the reason.)

As for ozeco's facts and procedural rules:

Fact #1a Bazant in B&Z identified that the real collapse mechanism was complicated and chose a simpler model which was valid for a "limit case argument";

Fact #1b Bazant in B&Z clearly distinguished the two different mechanisms - the more complicated real event and the simpler version supporting a "limit case" argument;

Fact #1c Bazant's "limit case" argument was conceptually valid, it has not been successfully challenged and he did not confuse the two mechanisms.

Procedural Rule #2 Discussion of WTC collapses should not use or rely on confusion of any issues of fact including the facts derived from Bazant's work.

Fact #3 The progression collapse stage for WTC1 and WTC2 was dominated by a mechanism in which material falling down the office space tube stripped floors leaving perimeter columns to fall away.

Fact #4 The real event collapse is a different mechanism to the column crushing model of the limit case argument.

Procedural Rule #5 Arguments should not be confused over the two mechanisms and any relationship they may have.

Fact #6 The later papers by Bazant et al are wrong if and whenever they apply 1D simplification models to the WTC real event".​

What I colored red is numbers I changed or added. I propose to use these for the sake of clarity and continuity.


I agree to all, with the usual disclaimer that I have not read or sufficiently understood the later papers to base this agreement on my own understanding, but the arguments presented here and elsewhere seem convincing enough to me; plus, my perception is that this is also rather uncontroversial among posters here today, including several whose judgement in such matters I trust to some degree based on past experience.

Thank you for the agreement on base technical facts. Also I agree and will stay with your numbering - I had hesitated to correct the numbering as the list evolved and simplified over recent weeks - too much risk of inconsistency.

Thank you also for separating the areas of (mostly) procedural misunderstanding from the agreed technical facts. I will try to keep the two distinct themes separated - viz "Points Where ozeco41 and Oystein Have Reached Explicit Stated Agreement" and "Issues of (So Far) Unresolved Misunderstanding"

I will add other member names to the list as an when they come aboard for the journey. I recognise that it is plausible that there may be sound arguments to cause you and I to modify our shared position.

I will address your issues of concern on the earlier Post #3012 at length as soon as I post some brief responses to relevant comments by other members.

 

[ozeco41]

Sorry Oystein, the part I marked in yellow agrees with BLGB as well as ROOSD.
If your going to comment you should Read BLGB,

Please take care that you don't miss the point Crazy. Oystein and I are agreeing base technical facts. They are foundation level facts - relevant to the topic of this thread. They are potentially premises on which further reasoned arguments could rest. So you are jumping several steps ahead of the stage of agreement that Oystein and I have reached.

 

[pgimeno]

As you wish. He is the co-author with Bazant of BLGB, and his quotes contradict pretty much everything you wrote in your answers about BL, but do whatever you think is best.

The problem is that you have failed to address the obvious question:

So ******* what?

David Benson may have had wrong ideas when he co-authored the BLGB paper. I haven't cared enough to check if that's true or not (excuse me if I don't rely on your word, based on past experience).

You have failed to establish the relevance in case that's true.

Is it because someone was wrong on the internet and you want to make everyone know that you were right and he was wrong?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Let's start with a few quotes by David Benson from the links given earlier.




David Benson on WTC1:


from this post


Question 13: Within this statement does David Benson explicitly state that there can be 'no significant early crush up' and that he has 'no doubts' about that claim?



David Benson on WTC1:

from this post


Question 14: Within this comment does David Benson state that the Bazant and Le paper contains the information that can help one understand why the WTC1 'upper block' (zone C) can be considered to be 'esentially rigid' during 'crush down'?

Question 15: Does he also state he considered starting a thread on how to build a table-top generator which would allow one to see that "indeed, zone C remains intact during crush-down."

Question 16: When David Benson refers to "reality" in this quote, is he referring to the actual collapse of WTC1?

>>>>>>>

My answers are: Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

I'd really like to read what others have to say.

Yes to all.

 

[ozeco41]

"Issues of (So Far) Unresolved Misunderstanding" - Part #1

This is Part 1 of my response to Oystein's Post #3012 - I intend to address the issues in this sequence:
Stage #1 = Note and set aside those issues which are resolved or where we are already agreed or where a simple explanatory comment should resolve the different perspectives. AKA clear the ground for the serious stuff;

Some of the remaining issues of misunderstanding are more fundamental than the others. They set the foundation for other misunderstandings which flow from the different foundations. So I will tackle them first:

Stage #2 - Identify and seek agreement/discussion of some points of base procedural protocols. (The procedural equivalent as premises to the technical base premises already agreed. So we agree where we start from - "technical" - and how we move forward - "procedural".)

THEN
Stage #3 - Having shared understanding of both the technical and the procedural foundations or "ground rules" - I will address the issues of current animosity expressed by some members in the context of those agreed foundations.

In this Stage #1 post I will explicitly identify which comments I think are resolved and flag them << Resolved and also those I want to defer and flag them this was << Deferred Issue #X

AND this will bore some members witless. So leave it to me and Oystein please.

Thanks Oystein. You are aware of my primary interest in these topics which is in understanding and explaining the engineering physics of the events.

You're welcome, and yes.

Agreed with thanks << Resolved.

Now I find myself under personal credibility attacks from three members. I am confident that those hostilities are unwarranted - in fact I've just drafted a reasoned rebuttal to all three BUT it goes against my grain - my values - to even bother defending such issues which are Off Topic.

Difficult to tell what is on- and off-topic in this thread (JREF/ISF has long held that the topic of a thread may drift somewhat from the OP, or that the OP are not entitled to have their interpretation of the topic upheld).

Agreed on that focus. My use of "Off Topic" was too narrow and misleading. There are embedded issues for Stage #3 << Deferred Issue #1

My aim throughout has been to establish agreed clarity on some foundation technical issues.

This is all good and well, but you cannot impose your foundation onto others.

That - or the genric principle under it - is the key issue for Stage #2 << Deferred Issue #2.

This thread is a confusing mess of partial understanding and different agendas.

Absolutely.

Agreed << Resolved.

MO many of the confusions and crossed agendas would be resolved or much easier to address if we could agree the core facts which flow from the OP.

I am not sure that the agenda that I am currently following can be thus resolved (and thus may well be / probably is off-topic).

Agreed - but isn't the resolution simple? Identify your objective? Mine is clearly stated "agree technical facts >> disregarded M_T's agenda >> use agreed technical and procedural ground rules to explain the progression mechanism identified by Bazant and many others and sometimes called "ROOSD". <<Agree or defer?

Do you agree with the objective of reducing conflict and confusions?
Do you agree that agreeing the foundation facts would help?

Yes to both.

Thank you. << Resolved.

Relevant to the OP, << What I am discussing less relevant to resolving the issue of memetics, groupthink, anthopology, dishonesty << What I am explicitly NOT discusing and allegations about what Myriad does or does not rest certain claims upon. << Defer for resolution in Stage #3

Set aside the first two items - << defer the third to stage #3 - deferred Issue #3.

[An anecdote about R Mackey.]

My sympathies.
I arrived here at a time when RMackey reigned as king.....followed him in any debates on collapse progression.

We can discuss further if it is relevant or just for interest. Ryan's work was front line for the time and better than his opponents at that time. << set aside.

I'm not into ego games. I comprehend the sins of M_T's posting. It is almost certain that he has attacked me more than any other member. You may rank #2. I'm trying to avoid getting even with M_T. If that is necessary - split the thread. Let's try for agreement on the technical issues. .

On one hand, I agree that splitting the thread would improve the level of debate both on the technical issues (despite their goin' 'round'n'round) and on the "memeplex". I am not sure on the other hand that there is a place/subforum here where the latter would fit and stay within the MA.

Different wording but we are agreed the two key points. (1) Split technical from behavioural and (2)this forum isn't the place for the "memes"/behavioural discussion. << Resolved.

I fully understand your position and it saddens me.

This is precisely what I doubt, and I claim the opposite: I do not believe you understand my position! If you did, you would have said by now "ahhh - now I get it" and revised your position.

OK - it is a point of difference and candidate for resolution. I suggest it is Stage #3 but we need the Stage #2 foundations. <<Deferred Issue #4

I don't want to publish the full rebuttals of three members claims about my alleged sins. Especially when all the alleged offences occurred when my accusers had already pushed us way off the theme. From my perspective all three have arisen when members have challenged or requested my to explain something and I have provided detailed reasoned responses which those members have ignored.

I think I have not ignored your "detailed reasoned response", instead I rejected it in its entirety because I felt it was so far off the mark, there was no point in addressing it in detail. You followed up with a lengthy proposal on how to procede, and yes. I ignored that - partly because it would have required more time in one piece than I had then (several days ago) (my apologies for that), partly because I don't know how to procede. I don't know how to express my position any clearer than I already have, so my best idea is to say "put your blinders off, and read the exchange of the last ... urrr 10 days or what was it, again".

That is the fundamental point of procedural disagreement. Either address and rebut my argument OR present your own comprehensive and coherent alternate argument. Or both. <<Deferred Issue #5 - a key issue of procedure.

The evidence of that initial discourtesy and the progressive deterioration and drifting further off track leading to personal insults is fully documented.

I do not wish to go there. If you want to push the issue we would do better on a different thread. I don't think that path is appropriate. At the least can you and I call a halt to the personal stuff?

I think I see a pattern in your posting in recent weeks and months that you attribute "Bazantianism" to other folks' posts where none is intended, or take references to Bazant, or terms appearing somewhere in Bazant's papers, farther than intended by those using them. You seem to assume - often falsely - that when someone discusses some detail of some Bazant paper (like Myriad recently did), they mean to apply that bit as part of an explanation of some observed feature of the real collapses.
Or, you drag in Bazant, only to reject his work, in discussions where no one makes reference to Bazant - essentially a kind of strawman argument.

That position relies on the procedural premise I've already identified for discussion. << Deferred Issue #6

I have alerted you to this a few times.
I will continue to alert you to this when I think you are committing this error again.

Not a problem once we sort out the procedural ground rules. << Deferred Issue #7

But I agree to "halt the personal stuff" between you and I - with the disclaimer that pointing out what I believe to be an error in something you say is NOT "personal stuff" - and observing that you commit the same alleged error repeatedly, that there seems to be a pattern, likewise needs not be "personal".

Fully agreed. Assertions that persons posts follow a style are assertions of objective fact. They are not personal. We can all miss the exact line from time to time. Reminiscing on my career as a moderator 2007-8-9>> the game in those far stricter times was "how close can you go to calling a person a liar without ACTUALLY saying it" - and multitudinous variants on that game. But the core issue - assertions of objective fact are assertions of objective fact. Agreed. << Resolved.

Humour yes in that I can laugh about myself here, BUT true regardless.

I read both aspects clearly. Humour with a sting of truth in the tale. If I ever lose my sense of humour I should stop posting. A comment from RL "You don't have to be crazy to drive school buses -- but it helps if you are."

 

[ozeco41]

Let's start with a few quotes by David Benson from the links given earlier.

David Benson on WTC1:

from this post

Question 13: Within this statement does David Benson explicitly state that there can be 'no significant early crush up' and that he has 'no doubts' about that claim?

David Benson on WTC1:

from this post

Question 14: Within this comment does David Benson state that the Bazant and Le paper contains the information that can help one understand why the WTC1 'upper block' (zone C) can be considered to be 'esentially rigid' during 'crush down'?

Question 15: Does he also state he considered starting a thread on how to build a table-top generator which would allow one to see that "indeed, zone C remains intact during crush-down."

Question 16: When David Benson refers to "reality" in this quote, is he referring to the actual collapse of WTC1?

>>>>>>>

My answers are: Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

I'd really like to read what others have to say.

yes To all BUT

What are you trying to prove?
Why not give us a claim - an hypothesis and outline reasoning.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

yes To all BUT

What are you trying to prove?
Why not give us a claim - an hypothesis and outline reasoning.

D'Alembert's principle does not apply .

 

[ozeco41]

D'Alembert's principle does not apply .

And???

It would be a damn sight easier if M_T would say what he is trying to prove rather than leaving it to the rest of us to identify the near infinite list of what he is NOT trying to prove.

However I'll add one to the list of what I think he is NOT trying to prove.

I declare that my "Santa's Custard Hypothesis" is NOT relevant.

So that is both D'Alembert AND Santa off the list of potential offenders. Only infinity minus 2 to go.

(And - before the maths pedants comment - I know.)

Your turn.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

And???

It would be a damn sight easier if M_T would say what he is trying to prove rather than leaving it to the rest of us to identify the near infinite list of what he is NOT trying to prove.

However I'll add one to the list of what I think he is NOT trying to prove.

I declare that my "Santa's Custard Hypothesis" is NOT relevant.

So that is both D'Alembert AND Santa off the list of potential offenders. Only infinity minus 2 to go.

(And - before the maths pedants comment - I know.)

Your turn.

crush up crush down is directly tied to D'Alembert's principal, MT wants to prove that debunkers will ignore the laws of physics themselves to harm his work, what I question is does MT know why Benson and Banzant are wrong about D'Alembert's principal?

 

[Major_Tom]

Yes to all.

Correct. These questions are pretty simple since the answer is most always given within the quote just above the question.

crush up crush down is directly tied to D'Alembert's principal, MT wants to prove that debunkers will ignore the laws of physics themselves to harm his work, what I question is does MT know why Benson and Banzant are wrong about D'Alembert's principal?

Another set of questions...

"Major_Tom ---
Do you doubt Newton's Laws?
Do you doubt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Alembert's_principle?
Do you doubt the applicability of the four simplifying assumptions in B&V?
If not, the conclusion of little early crush-up of zone C follows.
Further, the timing studies in BLGB show that most of zone C mass must have stayed on top most of the way down."

from this post


Question 10: Within this quote does David Benson express the belief that the timing studies in BLGB shows that most of the zone C mass (the 'upper block') of WTC1 must have stayed 'on top' most of the way down, experiencing 'little early crush up'?

Question 11: Does David Benson state that little early crush up of the wTC1 upper portion directly follows from an application of Newton's Laws, D'Alembart's principle and the fact that the four simplifying assumptions stated in the paper BV can be applied to WTC1?

>>>>>>>

My answers are yes and yes.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Correct. These questions are pretty simple since the answer is most always given within the quote just above the question.







Another set of questions...


from this post


Question 10: Within this quote does David Benson express the belief that the timing studies in BLGB shows that most of the zone C mass (the 'upper block') of WTC1 must have stayed 'on top' most of the way down, experiencing 'little early crush up'?

Question 11: Does David Benson state that little early crush up of the wTC1 upper portion directly follows from an application of Newton's Laws, D'Alembart's principle and the fact that the four simplifying assumptions stated in the paper BV can be applied to WTC1?

>>>>>>>

My answers are yes and yes.

Of course he does it should apply if there is nothing else preventing it, like friction of a sliding surface.

 

[ozeco41]

Of course he does it should apply if there is nothing else preventing it, like friction of a sliding surface.

Or reality.

If the visual evidence says one thing and the theory says something different - I'll back the visual evidence unless there is a very persuasive argument explaining away the visual evidence.

No need for the "death of a thousand cuts". Benson was wrong.

So what?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I will add other member names to the list as an when they come aboard for the journey. I recognise that it is plausible that there may be sound arguments to cause you and I to modify our shared position.

I'd like to offer one such argument.

I think it's an over-reach to assign the status of "Fact" to #3. We know that perimeter columns did indeed fall away, from direct observation; that I would be happy to consider a fact. However, the mechanism causing those columns to fall away was not directly observed, so can only be the subject of a conclusion from analysis. Clearly the mechanism proposed is a hypothesis strongly favoured by the evidence, but considering it as a fact rather than the currently favoured hypothesis may simply lead to the same kind of insistence on dogma, should someone come up with a better hypothesis, that this discussion is intended to overcome. There is as yet no better hypothesis on offer, but I'd be reluctant to exclude the possibility of one arising.

Dave

 

[ozeco41]

I'd like to offer one such argument.

I think it's an over-reach to assign the status of "Fact" to #3. We know that perimeter columns did indeed fall away, from direct observation; that I would be happy to consider a fact. However, the mechanism causing those columns to fall away was not directly observed, so can only be the subject of a conclusion from analysis. Clearly the mechanism proposed is a hypothesis strongly favoured by the evidence, but considering it as a fact rather than the currently favoured hypothesis may simply lead to the same kind of insistence on dogma, should someone come up with a better hypothesis, that this discussion is intended to overcome. There is as yet no better hypothesis on offer, but I'd be reluctant to exclude the possibility of one arising.

Dave

Top point Dave. Thanks for the input - I'm too close to the issue and I missed it.

My problem - the reason I slipped from my usual attempts to be pedantically accurate - is that I always assume "Scientific Method" or at least the parts of Scientific Method that are applicable to an analysis in the field of engineering forensics. Most of us who could be interested in this discussion probably do the same. So I often take the short cuts.

Can you suggest an alternate? Would it be better to simply disclaim the use of "fact" as meaning "aspects of the current extant hypothesis which we accept..." Starts to get cumbersome doesn't it.

Mmm let me think about it. Suggestions welcome. The objective is that "we" agree and that means we will accept it as current extant hypothesis subject to all the disclaimers required by SM. And I don't think anyone likely to be interested in the discussion disagrees with the current status....

 

[Dave Rogers]

Can you suggest an alternate? Would it be better to simply disclaim the use of "fact" as meaning "aspects of the current extant hypothesis which we accept..." Starts to get cumbersome doesn't it.

Doesn't need to be too heavy. How about:

Fact #3 The progression collapse stage for WTC1 and WTC2 appears consistent with a mechanism in which material falling down the office space tube stripped floors leaving perimeter columns to fall away.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

Major_Tom, I think it is inappropriate and impolite to keep asking questions and expect answers, when you are yourself avoiding questions like hell

From http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10906923#post10906923

So, to get back to my original question, which I asked you answer with a direct Yes or No:
Do you claim that I, Oystein, have expressed strong views of any kind over BV and/or BL?
Please do not forget about the emphasized word that was in the question from the very beginning, when you pen your answer of "Yes" or "No".[/QUOTE]
​

I want to know, because a while ago you insinuated by way of innuendo that I, Oystein, had expressed "strong views of any kind over BV and/or BL". I think we need to have this resolved.

Also, there are valid and technical on-topic questions by pgimeno and ozeco further up on the current page which are designed to help this thread progress, and which you ignored. If I may paraphrase:

pgimeno: If Benson said this and this - so *********** what?
ozeco: What hypothesis or claim do you wish to make and discuss?

 

[Oystein]

Dave, ozeco, I am not too hung up on the word "fact". I usually treat it as short code for "claim of fact that is supported by evidence and currently agreed upon as most likely true by me plus either my present opponent or by a discernible consensus in the relevant field of study".

So for the sake of brevity, I have no qualms about keeping the label "fact".

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Or reality.

If the visual evidence says one thing and the theory says something different - I'll back the visual evidence unless there is a very persuasive argument explaining away the visual evidence.

No need for the "death of a thousand cuts". Benson was wrong.

So what?

Banzant, Benson and thousands of physicists were wrong, it's only rocket science though.
The principal of physics is hard to escape the question is what caused it not to apply?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

A theory needs to show whyD'Alembert's principal doe not apply if it is correct in this universe.

It should even apply to a falling mass inside a funnel effect.

I can think of two possible theories, but would like to hear others Ideas first.

 

[JSanderO]

Doesn't need to be too heavy. How about:

Fact #3 The progression collapse stage for WTC1 and WTC2 appears consistent with a mechanism in which material falling down the office space tube stripped floors leaving perimeter columns to fall away.

Dave

A vertical tube which has its 4 side "fall away" needs to have them separate at the corners... correct?

The seems to have been a lateral outward force which directed the fall away to the outside.

What do you think it was?