DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
OOS Collapse Propagation Model
- Thread starter Major_Tom
- Start date
- Status
Even these crude images provide enough information to conclude that a significant height the full width of the core survived the initial phase of destruction...
Or are you making bones about who or when such information was *discovered* ? If so, meh. Doesn't matter. Point is clear, though reference to who and when is always useful.
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
Is anyone else interested in wasting any more of their time with this? I'm not. Femr2 is asking for evidence of things that happened IN THIS VERY THREAD. I'm not going to play that game.
Major_Tom wants to argue against a strawman Bazant. Repeated quotes from the paper (some of which he has provided) doesn't seem to persuade him that he is looking at the papers wrong. He also wants to say that he's the first person to come up with the idea of the columns not hitting each other. Here's a post by PhantomWolf from my very first thread on this forum:
That's May 2007. Before Major_Tom even joined this forum.
If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go off and do something more productive than talking with liars and boasters now.
Major_Tom wants to argue against a strawman Bazant. Repeated quotes from the paper (some of which he has provided) doesn't seem to persuade him that he is looking at the papers wrong. He also wants to say that he's the first person to come up with the idea of the columns not hitting each other. Here's a post by PhantomWolf from my very first thread on this forum:
That's May 2007. Before Major_Tom even joined this forum.
If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go off and do something more productive than talking with liars and boasters now.
What does this junk have to do with your conclusions?
Is the paper about your delusions on 911?
Are you trying to back in support for your 911 fantasy?
Goal of the paper?
This pretty much ruins the faster than free-fall 911 truth side of the house, and how does thermite and beam weapons, or nukes fit in with your paper?
How can you introduce BS in your conclusion due to some delusions of an inside job 911 truth fantasy?
Is the paper about your delusions on 911?
Are you trying to back in support for your 911 fantasy?
Goal of the paper?
"all core columns", ? It does not make sense to say all then qualify it. "Some core columns on the north side collapsed shortly after the shell and floors failed."
This pretty much ruins the faster than free-fall 911 truth side of the house, and how does thermite and beam weapons, or nukes fit in with your paper?
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
PhantomWolf was not the only one. From a pair of September 2007 posts:
... and:
I'm sure lots of other folks have said this here before too. Heck, for quite a while now, it's been one of the points we here have been trying to hammer into conspiracy peddlers: That one of the reasons the buildings failed was because the floors were stripped from the columns and removed all lateral support from them. Which removed their ability to merely stand straight up, let alone support any real weight. And that furthermore, the tilt of the upper section meant that a great deal of the columns would in fact not be able to land directly on lower columns, and that some would miss altogether and hit the floor pans. It's so common a response that even I know it, and I'm no engineer.
As is expected, there appears to be communication, er, barriers.
ROOSD is a description of progressive natural collapse of the outside core flooring, which is self sustaining given appropriate initiating conditions, and does so by providing appropriate confirmable visual observation from photographs and video.
It does not deal directly with the core.
It does not deal directly with initiation.
It is not a direct refudation of B&V.
It is not a direct refudation of CD, nor Total Global Collapse.
I assume that all posters so far don't actually disagree with the premise that the outside core flooring suffered from a self-sustaining natural collapse ?
If so, I do not see why there is such *tone* being used.
If not, speak up
I see no problem with stating things like *don't like the inclusion of X in the summary*, but an attempt to formalise a primary mechanism of destruction would not be something I would expect the stalwart JREF community to reject so off-hand.
To wander off into -delusions-, -beam weapons-, -fantasy- and -nukes- is simply ludicrous.
I note that there have been no posts from those who believe that explosives were required on every floor of each tower to achieve their destruction.
It will be interesting to see if presentation in the format the study is in will allow certain camps to find some common ground, or not.
ROOSD is a description of progressive natural collapse of the outside core flooring, which is self sustaining given appropriate initiating conditions, and does so by providing appropriate confirmable visual observation from photographs and video.
It does not deal directly with the core.
It does not deal directly with initiation.
It is not a direct refudation of B&V.
It is not a direct refudation of CD, nor Total Global Collapse.
I assume that all posters so far don't actually disagree with the premise that the outside core flooring suffered from a self-sustaining natural collapse ?
If so, I do not see why there is such *tone* being used.
If not, speak up
I see no problem with stating things like *don't like the inclusion of X in the summary*, but an attempt to formalise a primary mechanism of destruction would not be something I would expect the stalwart JREF community to reject so off-hand.
To wander off into -delusions-, -beam weapons-, -fantasy- and -nukes- is simply ludicrous.
I note that there have been no posts from those who believe that explosives were required on every floor of each tower to achieve their destruction.
It will be interesting to see if presentation in the format the study is in will allow certain camps to find some common ground, or not.
Last edited:
There is no common ground which ends with CD, thermite, beam weapons, nukes, and other nonsense 911 truth made up out of ignorance. Your delusions on 911 can't be supported.
911 truth makes up delusional conclusions and tries to back in evidence. Jones took dust and says it is thermite after he made up thermite as the mechanisms for collapse and now he is completely insane making claims US cause the Haiti earthquake.
You and Major Tom are lost in 911 truth and can't climb out of the hole of ignorance 911 truth built to trap the gullible; 8 years of woo, and you and Major Tom still think 911 was CD. Be proud you are 911 truth.
Awesome stuff. Careful of RSI though mate. It must get very, very boring posting the same set of words in a different order all the time.
Do you agree that progressive self-sustaining collapse of the outside core flooring was a primary mechanism of destruction, or not ?
(aka ROOSD, Runaway Open Office Space Destruction)
Last edited:
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
Yet you mention demolition in your conclusions...........why? What in your collapse mechanism requires a demolition?
Yet you mention demolition in your conclusions...........why? What in your collapse mechanism requires a demolition?
I know the question is for MT, but if I may...
Again, ROOSD is not a refudation of CD.
And it's not a refudation of natural global collapse.
It deals specifically with the phase of destruction clearly outlined.
Have you read the study ?
Here is where you are selecting CD from...
ROOSD does not deal with initiation. It does not deal with the core.
Do you think that progressive self-sustaining collapse of the outside core floor structure (ROOSD) is a primary phase of destruction within the towers, or not ?
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
Yet you mention demolition in your conclusions...........why? What in your collapse mechanism requires a demolition?
It's the ultimate culmination of truther evolution: that collapse would only require a collapse initiation, that explosives don't need to be placed on every floor, that the upper block didn't have to be dustified by nano-thermites to be destroyed.
Unfortunately, it is also completely destroys the visual "evidence" that originally convinced them of "inside job" when they first became truthers. Which means they're only truthers because they were truthers once and they're too stubborn and too committed to being truthers to change.
Boring, Not at all, it takes a few words to describe your delusions on 911. I can't find more words to describe nut case conclusions made while trying and failing to back in evidence for your CD delusions. As an engineer I find it sad you and Major Tom make up delusions about something so easy to understand.
lol, I have to have something to do while formating the 2TB drive in the LR computer, transferring files, and organizing the 7+TB drive array while mowing the lawn, servicing the hot tub, drinking all the Coca Cola, etc.
The primary mechanism of destruction, was a combination of the following events. Impacts 7 to 11 times greater than design, at 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy. Impacts with jet engines running near 100 percent which will essentially instantly ignite jet fuel. Jet fuel fires which set multiple floor office fires in seconds; jet fuel 10,000 gallons, 66,000 pounds of jet fuel. Impacts which destroyed the fire protection coatings all over the impact area and other floors! Fires fighting systems destroyed by impacts. Steel unprotected subjected to multiple floor giant fires, seen by many but denied by your fellow 911 truther delusion supporters.
Do you deny aircraft impact 7 to 11 times the design of the WTC were responsible for the WTC towers falling? Yes you do, you make up CD delusions because you lack the skill, knowledge, and experience to figure out 911.
The WTC were designed to survive an aircraft impact below 200 mph; the impacts on 911 were outside the design of the building and the chief structural engineer said the same. Studies prove the buildings would repel impacts below 200 mph. The primary cause of destruction was aircraft impacts at HIGH SPEED. Low speed impacts would not destroy the WTC towers; there is a paper about the impact speeds which confirm the design spec Robertson claims.
WTC7 burned all day and you make up lies about how it fell. Last time I checked when fires burn buildings can fall. Last time I checked CD makes loud noises not heard on 911. Last time I checked thermite leaves iron products, not found at the WTC. CD is not an option, why is it in the paper?
The evidence clearly show the WTC collapsed due to aircraft impacts and all the bad stuff that come with an aircraft loaded with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. No matter how much you study or model the different parts of the WTC collapse, you will not be able to back in CD or other 911 truth delusions. I read the paper, and the conclusion speaks for itself as it talks about
. How truthy.
Where will this paper be published? At the insane Jones on-line Journal of woo?
Do you have a conclusion the WTC1,2,7 were CD or not? lol
Is Major Tom trying to back in support for so his delusion of a
, will be true in his delusion?
No wonder you have to create your own forum to discuss this nonsense. You guys really have a problem with models.
The conclusions are delusions. Major Tom is talking about people blowing up the WTC.
It is not new that a floor in the WTC can only hold so much weight; if a floor is overloaded it fails, then the next floor will fail. This is clearly found in NIST; you guys have done nothing but made another model which is as flawed as the models you fail to comprehend. I noticed the core also fell, what caused the core to fail shortly after the floors in the lower sections?
You believe CD was the primary mechanism! Your support of the paper will not lead to making your delusion come true. The core part is funny; is there a what happen to the core above the impact area paper coming out soon? Is there an appendix for what happen to the core sections not standing as long as some of the other core? Why did the core fall?
Why do you believe CD was the primary mechanism?
Last edited:
What are my delusions Beachnut ? I suspect you have absolutely no idea of my position. You can bandy about as many words as you like, but your problem is that you ascribe a set of beliefs you yourself believe an entire section of people all share as gospel. Quite humerous really.
It's interesting to see you back in so much off topic verbage though. Anyone would think you were more guilty of the very thing you accuse others of.
But yes, to my mind the inaccurate depiction of initiation described within the NIST report requires more scrutiny, but this thread is most certainly not the place for that discussion. ROOSD is the topic here.
Reading between the lines, it looks like you agree with the premise of ROOSD. Fine
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
As is expected, there appears to be communication, er, barriers.
ROOSD is a description of progressive natural collapse of the outside core flooring, which is self sustaining given appropriate initiating conditions, and does so by providing appropriate confirmable visual observation from photographs and video.
It does not deal directly with the core.
It does not deal directly with initiation.
It is not a direct refudation of B&V.
It is not a direct refudation of CD, nor Total Global Collapse.
I assume that all posters so far don't actually disagree with the premise that the outside core flooring suffered from a self-sustaining natural collapse ?
If so, I do not see why there is such *tone* being used.
If not, speak up
I see no problem with stating things like *don't like the inclusion of X in the summary*, but an attempt to formalise a primary mechanism of destruction would not be something I would expect the stalwart JREF community to reject so off-hand.
To wander off into -delusions-, -beam weapons-, -fantasy- and -nukes- is simply ludicrous.
I note that there have been no posts from those who believe that explosives were required on every floor of each tower to achieve their destruction.
It will be interesting to see if presentation in the format the study is in will allow certain camps to find some common ground, or not.
WTF? Do you expect us to not respond to claims in a paper simply because those claims aren't part of what you assume the main point of the paper is? Do you have any idea how insane that is?
NB, thanks for the quote by Jaydee and you are certainly right about that.
It is hard to miss something this large
Appendix B on peeling is just a more detailed presentation of that which is staring us all in the face.
I also realize your source of contention with my mentioning BV and BL in the paper, since you seem quite sure this is not intended as a collapse mechanism for WTC1, even though the paper begins thus:
Abstract: Progressive collapse is a failure mode of great concern for tall buildings, and is also typical of building demolitions. The most
infamous paradigm is the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. After reviewing the mechanics of their collapse, the motion during
the crushing of one floor (or group of floors) and its energetics are analyzed, and a dynamic one-dimensional continuum model of
progressive collapse is developed.
and I watched Dr Benson spend some time fitting WTC1 roofline drop data to it and using BL as proof that WTC1 crush-down must be complete before crush-up begins, just as Dr Bazant insists in BL, his reasoning being because columns cannot buckle upwards due to insufficient upward force (seriously, that is the reasoning in BL)
This perhaps confused me into believing he did try to propose a collapse propagation model for WTC1, and that is why I mention those papers in the ROOSD propagation study.
Concepts like crush down before crush up, with a diagram of WTC1 doing just that, according to you was proposed for buildings in general, not for WTC1 and such concepts are just a "best case scenario" and were not intended by Dr Bazant to be taken literally
Since you are the first person I have heard say that, I still remain confused and though I should yield to your superior education and understanding on the subject, I'll still leave it in the study for now while noting your strong objection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If we put on our galoshes and wade through the steady stream of insults and other such manure posted in this thread, it seems pretty clear that we are all in agreement on all 4 physical observations in the paper and the conclusion which can be summarized:
ROOSD is the only known WTC1 collapse propagation model that agrees with all observables,
Though NB notes that I am clueless for calling the floor region in question OOS. An utter dolt.
Are there any objections to that claim?
It is hard to miss something this large
Appendix B on peeling is just a more detailed presentation of that which is staring us all in the face.
I also realize your source of contention with my mentioning BV and BL in the paper, since you seem quite sure this is not intended as a collapse mechanism for WTC1, even though the paper begins thus:
Abstract: Progressive collapse is a failure mode of great concern for tall buildings, and is also typical of building demolitions. The most
infamous paradigm is the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. After reviewing the mechanics of their collapse, the motion during
the crushing of one floor (or group of floors) and its energetics are analyzed, and a dynamic one-dimensional continuum model of
progressive collapse is developed.
and I watched Dr Benson spend some time fitting WTC1 roofline drop data to it and using BL as proof that WTC1 crush-down must be complete before crush-up begins, just as Dr Bazant insists in BL, his reasoning being because columns cannot buckle upwards due to insufficient upward force (seriously, that is the reasoning in BL)
This perhaps confused me into believing he did try to propose a collapse propagation model for WTC1, and that is why I mention those papers in the ROOSD propagation study.
Concepts like crush down before crush up, with a diagram of WTC1 doing just that, according to you was proposed for buildings in general, not for WTC1 and such concepts are just a "best case scenario" and were not intended by Dr Bazant to be taken literally
Since you are the first person I have heard say that, I still remain confused and though I should yield to your superior education and understanding on the subject, I'll still leave it in the study for now while noting your strong objection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If we put on our galoshes and wade through the steady stream of insults and other such manure posted in this thread, it seems pretty clear that we are all in agreement on all 4 physical observations in the paper and the conclusion which can be summarized:
ROOSD is the only known WTC1 collapse propagation model that agrees with all observables,
Though NB notes that I am clueless for calling the floor region in question OOS. An utter dolt.
Are there any objections to that claim?
Last edited:
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
Outside my area of expertise but yes in general the floors collapsing down between the two tubes of columns seems to be what happened. I don't think that was ever in dispute apart from amongst the crazier truthers with their squibs and freefall nonsense.
He needs to write up a Paper in the proper format and present it for peer review.
Last edited:
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
I quoted PhantomWolf. Do you read what ANYONE writes?
You're moving the goalposts. We've been talking about the claim of axial-column impacts. Not the crush-up / crush-down hypothesis.
Incidentally, you haven't done anything to debunk crush-up / crush-down. Even in a floor failing model, crush-up / crush-down still applies due to the simple fact that there is very little force being applied to the upper block. The rubble layer is still doing all the destruction.
Yes, the floors failed in the collapse, not the columns. Congratulations, you wrote a paper describing what the vast majority here has been saying since before you joined this forum.
Actually I accused you making up words to sound like an expert with regards to the "OOS flooring" term. It's not used in engineering. Not that you're a dolt. I'd prefer to use the term "charlatan" now that you mention it.
Please see my previous statement of, "Do you read what ANYONE writes?" You have a seriously bad habit.
- Status