OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[Bravin Neff]

Where I went to school and studied physics, you misapplied it you died.

LOL

Wait, not funny.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

LOL

Wait, not funny.

Physics question, if you have an old model, 150 HP tractor, no set belts or romps, 3 tires are in the air on a steep hillside mowing, where do you go and how fast?

Second Question, you have a TD 25 International bulldozer, on a step soap stone hill side,
Next to a dry creek bed, it it possible to set that machine strait up and down on the blade and fly off into a yellow jackets nest and only swallow one of the 250 yellow jackets, and the one you swallowed be one of the few who didn't sting you?

Those are questions I know the answers too unfortunately.

 

[Major_Tom]

David Benson yet again...


David Benson on WTC1:

"Assuming homogeneity, Bazaant & Le show thaqt zone C is almost industrucible. That's mechincs for you. The sturcture obviiously was not homogeneous and you have, in other threads, shown some distruction along the west and north walls. In of itself that mass loss is not important, but it does mean the floor trusses in those areas have been weakened. So an average of about 4--6 stories above floor 98 do not come close to satisfying the homogeneity condition. Fine. consider then that zone C is from floor, say, 102 up. To keep the equation simple, assume crush-down begins from there. As I mentiioned in this thread yesterday, this works well enough to match the additional observations by OneWhiteEye.
"

from this post



Question 5: Within this statement does David Benson consider the upper portion of WTC1 from the 102nd floor upwards to be virtually indestructible based on the arguments given in the paper by Bazant and Le?


My answer is yes, He did make that claim. He made similar claims many times in the quotes I have provided.

 

[Major_Tom]

You don't say it, but you insinuate, that specific members here, countable and nameable, "see authority as providing all the answers".
Can you estimate how many of those who have posted within this thread "see authority as providing all the answers"?

Well, we are now on page 77 of a thread that, in a sane environment, would have lasted about 10 pages.


Is there anyone besides Ozeco or SanderO that can see that there is something not quite right about how David Benson, co-author of BLGB, perceived the collapse progression process of the WTC towers?

Is there anyone who can see that there is something not quite right about statements made by Bazant in the closure to BV, which is BL?

 

[beachnut]

... in a sane environment, would have lasted about 10 pages. ...?

Why can't you comprehend models and their purpose? What was the purpose of the collapse study? What was the conclusion?

... 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 the conclusion is nonsense.

In reality there is no scientific approach and, therefore, no technical history of the collapses at all. This is a verifiable statement.

Could not find a model, but I found lie as a conclusion.

It is not a model, is BS and failed ideas.

This mathematical 1-D interaction described in the latter Bazant papers has come to be taken quite literally as the process that actually happened to each tower.

This is BS, and there is no model.
There is a lot of technobabble, to satiate the need for piles of BS.

What would be more interesting is when MT dropped CD, and the illusion of the gravity collapse nonsense. When, what, and why did MT stop believing CD? Or, if there were answers to the Gish Gallop of silly questions in MT's posts. What is the result?

MT asks, "is the sky blue"? If you answer yes, ... see, 911 was an inside job... qed


goodnight mrs calabash, wherever you are

 

[JSanderO]

Why can't you comprehend models and their purpose? What was the purpose of the collapse study? What was the conclusion?

And the conclusion is nonsense.

Could not find a model, but I found lie as a conclusion.

It is not a model, is BS and failed ideas.

This is BS, and there is no model.
There is a lot of technobabble, to satiate the need for piles of BS.

What would be more interesting is when MT dropped CD, and the illusion of the gravity collapse nonsense. When, what, and why did MT stop believing CD? Or, if there were answers to the Gish Gallop of silly questions in MT's posts. What is the result?

MT asks, "is the sky blue"? If you answer yes, ... see, 911 was an inside job... qed


goodnight mrs calabash, wherever you are

I don't really care about your dispute with MT... but please tell me and when (in the last few years) that MT has proposed that the towers can down as a result of a CD.... and then go back as far as you want to find this statement. If that is the trust of his comments... I have not read this.... and I don't get it.

People do change and evolve their thinking.... make mistakes and learn from them. Admitting mistakes is not a very common thing... less so publicly or on www forums. I am aware of mistakes some have made and I have not read any statements from them admitting mistakes or revising their former comments and positions.

It hardly matters to me. But it does that mis information is still cited as truth and fact.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Well, we are now on page 77 of a thread that, in a sane environment, would have lasted about 10 pages.


Is there anyone besides Ozeco or SanderO that can see that there is something not quite right about how David Benson, co-author of BLGB, perceived the collapse progression process of the WTC towers?

Is there anyone who can see that there is something not quite right about statements made by Bazant in the closure to BV, which is BL?

Yes the application of D'Alembert's principal by Banzant that carried over to BLGB and prevented crush up, was incorrect.
However that is not accounted for in the ROOSD theory, either.

 

[Oystein]

You don't say it, but you insinuate, that specific members here, countable and nameable, "see authority as providing all the answers".
Can you estimate how many of those who have posted within this thread "see authority as providing all the answers"?

[snipped a snide remark on the sanity of all or most other posters]

[snipped an irrelevant counter-question]?

[snipped an irrelevant counter-question]

Since you quoted my question, but then failed completely to even address, let alone answer it, I have to ask again:


You don't say it, but you insinuate, that specific members here, countable and nameable, "see authority as providing all the answers".
Can you estimate how many of those who have posted within this thread "see authority as providing all the answers"?
Even better, can you please name a few specific posters who "see authority as providing all the answers"? For example, do you think that I "see authority as providing all the answers"? A simple Yes or No would be appreciated - in fact is expected here.


In addition, you still are running away from a simple yes/no question that I asked you several times already - why don't you get it over with, man up, and give a straight and honest answer, not another round of weasling?

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

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".​

 

[Seymour Butz]

I don't really care about your dispute with MT... but please tell me and when (in the last few years) that MT has proposed that the towers can down as a result of a CD.... and then go back as far as you want to find this statement. If that is the trust of his comments... I have not read this.... and I don't get it.

People do change and evolve their thinking.... make mistakes and learn from them. Admitting mistakes is not a very common thing... less so publicly or on www forums. I am aware of mistakes some have made and I have not read any statements from them admitting mistakes or revising their former comments and positions.

It hardly matters to me. But it does that mis information is still cited as truth and fact.

Can you link to a post, anywhere, where he retracts his CD claim?

If not, then with the available evidence, the only conclusion that a rational skeptic could come to is that he still believes that CD is the most plausible explanation.

And that indeed, all his efforts for the past few years have been a quest to settle some old scores.

 

[Bravin Neff]

Yes the application of D'Alembert's principal by Banzant that carried over to BLGB and prevented crush up, was incorrect. However that is not accounted for in the ROOSD theory, either.

Nor does any of those theories account for the fake (and terribly bad) I'm-just-an-anthropologist-studying-debunker-culture gag, but playground settling of scores does.

It's cool.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Nor does any of those theories account for the fake (and terribly bad) I'm-just-an-anthropologist-studying-debunker-culture gag, but playground settling of scores does.

It's cool.

I said it was a false analogy, what more do you want?
I am not at fault for the crazy Ideas of others, only for my own.

 

[JSanderO]

Can you link to a post, anywhere, where he retracts his CD claim?

If not, then with the available evidence, the only conclusion that a rational skeptic could come to is that he still believes that CD is the most plausible explanation.

And that indeed, all his efforts for the past few years have been a quest to settle some old scores.

No I can't and I will not look for or read through the JREF history. No concern for me. I don't think every mistake or change of position needs a formal mea culpa... or retraction.

What exactly is the point?

From what I can see MT has done good work about the COLLAPSE phase and that work looks impeccable. Do you have an issue with it? If you find it rings true... will you cite the links to where you stated this? Actually I could care less about what you or anyone else thinks. I am personally only interested in what YOU or anyone else can add to my understanding.

Thank you.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

No I can't and I will not look for or read through the JREF history. No concern for me. I don't think every mistake or change of position needs a formal mea culpa... or retraction.

What exactly is the point?

From what I can see MT has done good work about the COLLAPSE phase and that work looks impeccable. Do you have an issue with it? If you find it rings true... will you cite the links to where you stated this? Actually I could care less about what you or anyone else thinks. I am personally only interested in what YOU or anyone else can add to my understanding.

Thank you.

What is there left to understand, there is not enough friction to over come, D'Alembert's principal in either Progressive Collapse, or in the funnel effect of ROOSD.

The only way the TOP block can have early crush up, is a force traveling upward, failing floors in the upward direction.

That produced intense vibration in the core on core beam and girder impacts that caused early
Crush up.

 

[WilliamSeger]

What is there left to understand, there is not enough friction to over come, D'Alembert's principal in either Progressive Collapse, or in the funnel effect of ROOSD.

The only way the TOP block can have early crush up, is a force traveling upward, failing floors in the upward direction.

That produced intense vibration in the core on core beam and girder impacts that caused early
Crush up.

I still can't figure out what you're trying to say about D'Alembert's Principal, but I believe an important factor in the crush up was the tilt.

 

[JSanderO]

What is there left to understand, there is not enough friction to over come, D'Alembert's principal in either Progressive Collapse, or in the funnel effect of ROOSD.

The only way the TOP block can have early crush up, is a force traveling upward, failing floors in the upward direction.

That produced intense vibration in the core on core beam and girder impacts that caused early
Crush up.

I am not sure where this crush up thing is going or came from. There was no homogeneous top "block" to have its bottom crushed "up".

What appears to have occurred is that the top section (let's use 1wtc) lost its integrity. By this I mean

It suffered mechanical damage to the structure from the plane strike
Some floor sections broke apart and dropped
It suffered warping from the effects of heat from fires

that led to warping, shearing and breaking or splice connections, mis alignments of columns ends, and additional sections of floors losing support and dropping down​

This damage was probably mostly at and slightly above the plane impact zone. The fires persisted and the damage from them SPREAD. This led to apparently

The loss of support for the center of the hat truss and the collapse of the antenna just preceding what was "left" of the floors above the plane strike zone from dropping
In so doing there were few columns still coupled.... they buckled severely and this may have explained the lateral translation of what was left of the top section as it dropped and engaged in a mutual destruction with the top of the bottom section AND what we identify as the (ROOSD) collapse phase.​

Perhaps crush up refers to the mutual destruction of the bottom of the dropping top and crush down to the top of the standing bottom???

 

[beachnut]

... please tell me and when (in the last few years) that MT has proposed that the towers can down as a result of a CD.... ...

Please tell me when, where, MT has retracted this?

... 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. ...

What has changed his mind on CD, when and why? Where is that history, which is of interest in the evolution of 911 truth, like a "book". What can we learn from MT to avoid being fooled by silly anti-science claims.

Can you find where MT dropped CD, and what made him drop it? There in real purpose to study the collapse; or do you have one? New evidence? What? When did you drop CD? Why were you fooled by people who said things like "the gravity collapse is an illusion", CD, and inside job.

Why does the book have lie for a conclusion?
Where is the model? There is talk about watching a collapse, and no substance.

What is the purpose of the model, past making up BS about physics, and models? There is no purpose.
Go ahead summarize the model, and the conclusion.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I am not sure where this crush up thing is going or came from. There was no homogeneous top "block" to have its bottom crushed "up".
<snip>
Perhaps crush up refers to the mutual destruction of the bottom of the dropping top and crush down to the top of the standing bottom???

You're missing all the drama and intrigue in M_T's war stories.

 

[JSanderO]

You're missing all the drama and intrigue in M_T's war stories.

I have no interest in drama or intrigue... I made it quote clear why I joined 9/11 discussions and forums.

I have no interest in explaining the thinking or behavior of others or debating them and showing them to be right or wrong.

 

[beachnut]

I have no interest in drama or intrigue... ...

I have no interest in explaining the thinking or behavior of others or debating them and showing them to be right or wrong.

...

"I am not satisfied with the explanation given. The explanation raises more questions than it answers."

The drama and intrigue might be idea like this. What was wrong with the "explanation given". It was wrong because it raises more questions than it answers? Is that due to a lack of knowledge and no in depth study of the event?

Much, if not all of 911 truth claims stem from a lack of knowledge. A lack of science. Things like why is there no video of 77... we have a video, but the reality of video make 77 a blur at best on a video at a gate... The lack of knowledge leads to BS and lies about 911, "raising more questions than it answers" due to lack of knowledge.

Is the "model" a result of a lack of knowledge? Did the anti-NIST, anti-Bazanian BS mentality lead to a "raises more questions than it answers" moment; a need to do a "model". Or another way, did "and global collapse ensued", have the "gravity collapse is an illusion" believer thinking, it "raises more questions than it answers"?
Is the "model" the same as the concise, "and global collapse ensued". How can NIST, or anyone say this? Because it is the truth. NIST and others studied the building, and know the structure? Yes.
Why did NIST not have to study the collapse past initiation more than they did? Because they knew the cause? A probable cause, and the big picture cause, effects of fire. And guess what, they did not have to model the collapse, they have it stored on video, it was laying on the ground, it took 8 months to clean up the collapse. The strength of the building is known, the collapse is stored on video, and laid out on the ground. Study complete.
NIST, and others studied the collapse, they had to do figure out probable causes, and see if the building was built as designed, built as promised.

What would the WTC do that the ESB can't; stop slow speed aircraft. The aircraft that did significant damage to the ESB would be stopped by the WTC. A small 18 pounds of TNT KE impact at the ESB did some damage, but at the WTC, it would stop at the shell, not go careening through the building. The WTC would stop a plane going 180 mph, and maybe to 250 mph in a study done after 911. Now the if comes... if the shell had been thicker, it could stop the 590 mph impact at the shell.

ROBERTSON: But the collapse mechanism of the Trade Center is as we had anticipated it would be when we first designed it. It was not – please don't misunderstand me – it was not designed to collapse.

No model needed? What engineer needs a model for the collapse? Any answers from MT? no

What was the purpose of a collapse model? I think we could take existing models and adapt them to a falling mass, much like is done for avalanches, or floods... For the WTC towers, we had two, full up models, and we have a record of the collapse. No model needed. What was the purpose of the "model". When the "model" is run does it match what we see? What does the "model" give us? A lie for a conclusion.

 

[JSanderO]

...


Is that due to a lack of knowledge and no in depth study of the event?

Doesn't matter...

good ideas which make sense are helpful... the rest is a distraction.