OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[JSanderO]

I thought M_T was the one sane voice guiding you through understanding what happened? Anyway, my answer to your question is that it seems to me M_T is more interested in creating false memes than he is in collecting them.

The section of BZ 2002 that I quoted is certainly not "quote mining" and it is relevant to both what happened and who said what when.

Making my best guess at what you mean by "merits of how the tower collapsed," than as one who believes that I can't do one without the other, may I say I'm rather offended by your command.

Yet when I quote you a section of BZ 2002 that does exactly that, you call it "childish."

1. I think MT's "work" (along with femr2 and a couple of others) relating to observations is the best out there. No one from JREF or the cited profs seems to come close. Who is to say what MT's motives are related to what happened. Who cares what his, your or my motives are unless explicitly stated... and are "questionable". I stated MY motive for participating and reading what I have and attending events such as the NIST disaster seminar at the Regenhard Center. You haven't stated YOUR motives and I don't care. Ozzie seems to want to explain the event to the clueless... and to disabuse the clever of some mishguided notions. Noble that is.

2. CLUE... What and when BZ BD BLLSHT BXXLSKSS wrote makes no damn difference unless these presentation discuss the actual event and explain what and why it happened. Nor their motivation... matters not.

3. Why would you be "offended" by a comment of a dumb old architect? It's not like I called you or anyone else a "horse's ass". I don't know YOU from a hole in the wall, your background, your qualifications or anything. And I don't care. If you don't add to MY UNDERSTANDING of the towers' destruction you are "useless to me". No insult intended. You are probably a nice fella.

4. Kindly please present your own ideas... I am not interested in people who are held up as experts and miss the boat on MUCH of this.

Thank you!

 

[JSanderO]

That is pretty clearly the least plausible reason you participate in a thread like this. Please allow me to quote myself:

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.

Your amateur psycho analysis is not only completely OT but is yet another example of avoiding solving the technical "puzzle" of why and how the towers collapsed. If you have nothing to add to that... why bother with this?

Your probability analysis about setting up a CD was more debunkery and most people on this forum don't accept CD as there is no evidence for it and so this analysis does not solve the how it happened question.

Do you have anything to propose on the technical level to explain how the collapse was initiated?

 

[WilliamSeger]

Yes. There is a very simple lesson that could be learned. The Windsor Tower example shows how periodic barriers can help prevent runaway open floor space collapse all the way to earth.

.
But it didn't make any difference except for adding to the expense of cleaning up the mess.

The city council of Madrid covered the cost of demolishing the remains of the building, thought to be some EUR22 million (USD $32.5 million).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower_(Madrid)

 

[Bravin Neff]

Your amateur psycho analysis is not only completely OT...

Untrue. MT offers amateur pscyho-babble nonsense every chance he gets, plus some really bad and fake anthropology. So it is completely on topic - and it will remain on topic as guaranteed by MT.

If you have nothing to add to that... why bother with this?

Because its on topic. How have you not noticed?

Your probability analysis about setting up a CD was more debunkery...

And even in that thread MT brought in his amateur psycho-babble nonsense and really bad (and fake) anthropology. How did you not notice? I mean, you were there.

Do you have anything to propose on the technical level to explain how the collapse was initiated?

Yes. It was initiated by the structural damage of fires after airplane collisions.

 

[JSanderO]

Untrue. MT offers amateur pscyho-babble nonsense every chance he gets, plus some really bad and fake anthropology. So it is completely on topic - and it will remain on topic as guaranteed by MT.



Because its on topic. How have you not noticed?



And even in that thread MT brought in his amateur psycho-babble nonsense and really bad (and fake) anthropology. How did you not notice? I mean, you were there.



Yes. It was initiated by the structural damage of fires after airplane collisions.

Brian.... two wrongs do not a right make. What MT does/writeis not the issue here is it? Who cares about psycho babble and why is his comments about repetition of incorrect thinking psycho babble?

The OP was about a paper MT was writing about his mappings (I suppose... wasn't here back then)... but "He" was pretty much immediately verbally assaulted and told it was all old hat and get lost... Lots of ad homs which persist.

STICK TO THE ISSUES... how and why did (mechanisms) of the collapse. If you have nothing to add... other than debunking CD hold your fire.

 

[JSanderO]

.
But it didn't make any difference except for adding to the expense of cleaning up the mess.

Difference in what? How many people below the mech floors were killed in the collapse of the top? Maybe if the collapse arrested at floor 72 mech floors hundreds or even thousands of lives could have been saved?

Maybe?

 

[pgimeno]

Of course I am. I said "Face it. B&Z was a good analysis for 9/13. It wasn't perfect." I will stand by that judgement

Face it, Harrit et al. didn't find any thermite.

In context, your statement makes as much sense as that one. As in, "sure, I can face it, but what does that have to do with what I was saying?"

You seem to be confusing B&Z 2001 with B&Z 2002. They are not one paper and its addendum. They are different things.

 

[pgimeno]

Yes. There is a very simple lesson that could be learned. The Windsor Tower example shows how periodic barriers can help prevent runaway open floor space collapse all the way to earth.

To me, it shows instead how well concrete performs in such exceptional circumstances, as compared to steel.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Difference in what? How many people below the mech floors were killed in the collapse of the top? Maybe if the collapse arrested at floor 72 mech floors hundreds or even thousands of lives could have been saved?

Maybe?

There were a lot of people at the time who knew the firefighters were in serious danger of a building collapse and tried to pull them out, but their radios failed. Hopefully that's at least one lesson learned.

If the Windsor Tower mechanical floor halted the collapse, then that means the collapse must have happened in stages such that no single impulse was too large to be absorbed elastically. Since you believe there's no use in theory or math, I won't waste time trying to explain why I make that assertion. Anyway, engineers do know how to at least mitigate against progressive collapse (and did before they had M_T's "mappings"); the problem is getting building owners to pay for it.

 

[JSanderO]

Anyway, engineers do know how to at least mitigate against progressive collapse (and did before they had M_T's "mappings"); the problem is getting building owners to pay for it.

Interesting comment... Do you think LERA opened up the issue of mitigating a total collapse by more robust mech floors with PANYNJ? Do you think they modeled it?

The mech floors WERE more robust.... but not by very much really.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Interesting comment... Do you think LERA opened up the issue of mitigating a total collapse by more robust mech floors with PANYNJ? Do you think they modeled it?

The mech floors WERE more robust.... but not by very much really.

Do you think the primary thread here, even after wandering all over the place from the OP topic, has centered on (on even come near) why we should require progressive collapse mitigation in building codes, or which construction projects have voluntarily taken that as a requirement, or how to engineer such mitigation? I think not, and I hold M_T's recent posts as evidence of a different agenda.

 

[JSanderO]

Do you think the primary thread here, even after wandering all over the place from the OP topic, has centered on (on even come near) why we should require progressive collapse mitigation in building codes, or which construction projects have voluntarily taken that as a requirement, or how to engineer such mitigation? I think not, and I hold M_T's recent posts as evidence of a different agenda.

Forget MT's agenda... which you are projecting.

If you watch the PR about the "innovative engineering" design and the several comments about a structure being able to "absorb" the impact of a big jet... the "pitch" was these were extremely strong structures... even over built. That may or may not have been the case... but that WAS the pitch AND the design has this super strong skin which could "stand on it's own" with the help of the floor system brace it to the self supporting and super strong core.

How "strong" could the design have been if it collapsed to the ground in 10 seconds? (rhetorical)

There was no discussion in the PR about how robust and strong the floor system was. The PR was about the clever off site manufacture and easy erector set light weight construction... right? (rhetorical)

Do you think a plane strike to the top of a typical high rise would "knock it over" or cause it's instant collapse? If so why? (not rhetotical)

 

[JSanderO]

The OP had nothing to do with the subsequent discussion.... whose "fault" is that? (rhetorical)

 

[WilliamSeger]

Forget MT's agenda... which you are projecting.

I'm not "projecting" that M_T has not really said anything about the specific questions I just asked, nor has he responded to me or anyone else recently on several issues raised about the alleged topic of the OP.

As for forgetting M_T's agenda, since you didn't type it in all caps, I'll take than as a suggestion rather than a command.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Forget MT's agenda... which you are projecting.

If you watch the PR about the "innovative engineering" design and the several comments about a structure being able to "absorb" the impact of a big jet... the "pitch" was these were extremely strong structures... even over built. That may or may not have been the case... but that WAS the pitch AND the design has this super strong skin which could "stand on it's own" with the help of the floor system brace it to the self supporting and super strong core.

How "strong" could the design have been if it collapsed to the ground in 10 seconds? (rhetorical)

There was no discussion in the PR about how robust and strong the floor system was. The PR was about the clever off site manufacture and easy erector set light weight construction... right? (rhetorical)

Do you think a plane strike to the top of a typical high rise would "knock it over" or cause it's instant collapse? If so why? (not rhetotical)

Put up or shut up. Seriously, you've made this claim over and over again yet you've provided zero evidence of this so far. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT THE STRUCTURE WAS DEFICIENT?

 

[JSanderO]

​

Put up or shut up. Seriously, you've made this claim over and over again yet you've provided zero evidence of this so far. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT THE STRUCTURE WAS DEFICIENT?

Deficient? No way Jose... Depends on how you evaluate building performance. The egress and fire suppression was certainly not stellar... Weren't they faced with upgrading it? If so why would that be?

If uyou had the choice between a structural design which could isolate and or arrest partial collapses... or one which would / could collapse to the ground in 10 seconds....

WHICH ONE WOULD YOU CHOOSE TO WORK IN.

(put up or shut up) Not a nice way to conduct a conversation!

 

[Newtons Bit]

And you've yet to provide any evidence, once again. You haven't even shown what kind of system would actually arrest a total collapse of an occupied skyscraper. FFS, that's not even possible!

 

[Bravin Neff]

Brian.... two wrongs do not a right make.

Its Bravin. This is not the first time.

I agree two wrongs do not make a right. Are you saying my analysis of MT's hurt feelings is wrong, or that it was wrong to bring it up (despite the fact it is on topic)?

...why is his comments about repetition of incorrect thinking psycho babble?

You are conflating his technical claims about someone being wrong with my reference toward psycho babble, when I'm just talking about the actual fake anthropology and pscyho babble. Yes, its psycho babble. Yes, its really (really) bad anthropology.

Wait - are you pretending its not there? The fake anthropology obviously meant to disguise the deep feelings of hurt? The blatant score settling? Do you suppose its possible the fact you are MT cheerleader #1 is biasing your clarity on this?

STICK TO THE ISSUES...

Agreed. And psycho-babble & fake-anthropology are two of the issues. MT will guarantee that they are, so long as he feels the need to settle scores. Watch his responses as they come.

 

[JSanderO]

I apologize for the name error... no intent to insult.

I think that analysis of how history is written... whatever you want to call it... is pretty interesting. We have a unique opportunity to be THERE when this "history" is being set down. I wasn't at Pearl Harbor or at the Reichstag... I wasn't at Plymouth Rock and so I read it in history books.

BTW

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_...States_of_America_Volume_One:_The_Early_Years

Is a real hoot.... Listen to it... you'll definitely enjoy it.

I was in NYC on 9/11. I am an architect. I did work for Emery Roth & Sons when the towers WTC was being done. I have been in those buildings many times and

I was surprised to see them come apart in 10-15 seconds. I think anyone who thought it was not almost "incredible" has to out to lunch.

I waited to learn how such a massive 400,000 - 500,000 ton structure could turn to dust and a pile of steel in 15 seconds. NIST was supposed to tell me. Nat Geo didn't and I thought their pancakes were a joke.

And I waited to see the actual plans to see if there was some clues there.

NIST's explanation seemed hardly more satisfying to my need to understand. Sagging trusses led to the collapse of this monster? THAT seems rather weird. How could THAT have happened? I know I know... un fought fires for less than 1.5 hrs.

I don't read much that explains what was happening... Limit cases are BS as far as I am concerned. The floor I am working on has a 50psf live design load and I am not concerned if it will collapse with 400 psf or 600psf or 100 psf. because non of these loads are going to be on the floor above me and come crashing down and go all the way to the ground.

I think the ROOSD by whatever name you want is a good description and helpful in understand the collapse phase... not the LIMIT case and crush up crush down nonsense.

Is ROOSD something that ANY building can experience or only OOS column free ones? Or OOS column free ones with light weight trusses? Or maybe ANY steel frame? These are questions NIST should have answered. I think.

And no one has attempted to explain the initiation post plane strike. And no one has responded to my hair brain ideas about it. NO INTEREST in explaining how the building ACTUALLY came apart. Yea we KNOW things which have no support fall down... Ozzie has said this for ages... but everyone who played with blocks as a kid knows that!.

WE HAVE NO HISTORY of the WTC collapses which explains what happened in my opinion.

You want to call that "anthropology" be my guest.

Ozzie also realized that the burden of proof for CD is entirely on the CD fellas and they can't do BOO with it. No need to debunk pure fantasy. WASTE OF TIME.

rant over

 

[JSanderO]

And you've yet to provide any evidence, once again. You haven't even shown what kind of system would actually arrest a total collapse of an occupied skyscraper. FFS, that's not even possible!

Wouldn't that depend on what is causing the "collapse""

What caused the collapse?

Don't say a plane strike and unfought fires...