OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[Major_Tom]

Done, and that is an important change so thanks to the people who have noticed the mistake.

ROOSD, like BV, deals with collapse propagation of WTC1 and real buildings, not initiation. Basquearch, upon reading BV, please note how the equations of motion are derived by Bazant. His expression for how mass gathers in the driving mass and his derivation of the frictional force F rely on continuous column buckling and rebuckling. That has nothing to do with a best case scenario and the quote you give from BZ has nothing to do with his propagation model given in BV.

 

[Major_Tom]

Trutherslie asks:

Can you explain to me how any explosives would survive
a. the impact of the jets
b. the ensuing fires

Or better yet, how anyone could KNOW where the jets would strike and then be able to install explosives which
a. no one noticied (Those floors were packed with people every day)
b. which would survive the impact of the jets and the ensuing fires.
.......................

These are good questions concerning initiation but they have nothing to do with the collapse propagation model or the study being discussed, so will only serve to distract from the present discussion.

Distraction would be useful from the point of view of people arguing that the ROOSD model contains no new information and is consistent with BV and BL, because I've asked some questions which will be very, very hard for for some of the participants to answer.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Trutherslie asks:

Can you explain to me how any explosives would survive
a. the impact of the jets
b. the ensuing fires

Or better yet, how anyone could KNOW where the jets would strike and then be able to install explosives which
a. no one noticied (Those floors were packed with people every day)
b. which would survive the impact of the jets and the ensuing fires.
.......................

These are good questions concerning initiation but they have nothing to do with the collapse propagation model or the study being discussed, so will only serve to distract from the present discussion.

Distraction would be useful from the point of view of people arguing that the ROOSD model contains no new information and is consistent with BV and BL, because I've asked some questions which will be very, very hard for for some of the participants to answer.

If it's such a distraction then why do you yourself mention it?

 

[T.A.M.]

Trutherslie asks:

Can you explain to me how any explosives would survive
a. the impact of the jets
b. the ensuing fires

Or better yet, how anyone could KNOW where the jets would strike and then be able to install explosives which
a. no one noticied (Those floors were packed with people every day)
b. which would survive the impact of the jets and the ensuing fires.
.......................

These are good questions concerning initiation but they have nothing to do with the collapse propagation model or the study being discussed, so will only serve to distract from the present discussion.

Distraction would be useful from the point of view of people arguing that the ROOSD model contains no new information and is consistent with BV and BL, because I've asked some questions which will be very, very hard for for some of the participants to answer.

Not true. The premise of CD is timed explosives on various floors, the vast majority below the point of initiation, so survival of explosives is key to your propagation theory...as is the precision of striking the appropriate area with the aircraft, as to misstrike, in an area not set for initiation, but rather further down, might destroy tonnes of explosives design to propagate your CD collapse.

TAM

 

[beachnut]

...
These are good questions concerning initiation but they have nothing to do with the collapse propagation model or the study being discussed, so will only serve to distract from the present discussion.

Distraction would be useful from the point of view of people arguing that the ROOSD model contains no new information and is consistent with BV and BL, because I've asked some questions which will be very, very hard for for some of the participants to answer.

LOL, you paper has extraneous BS in it and the questions asked were idiotic ideas you brought up. Did you read your own paper? This is a joke, you Jones and Gage have no clue what happen on 911 so you try to manufacture doubt to fool others. 8 years and the best you can do is miss the fact your paper constantly gets off topic and is so broad in nature after it finishes you would have an F. What is your degree in? What engineering experience do you have.

Run away from questions your paper brings up; good job. Cut the crap out of your paper. With the evidence and your paper, you have debunked CD now and forever; which is correct since there were zero explosives and even less thermite used on 911.

8 years? 911 was solved in minutes by heroes, and then the rest of us caught up and you and 911 truth are not looking like you have a chance at reality.

 

[Major_Tom]

The quotes from the paper, given by Basquearch:

"Correcting Mistakes Resulting From Overzealous Attachment to Bazant & Verdure, Bazant & Le Formulations of Progressive Collapse.Bazant and Verdure (BV) and Bazant and Le were written at a time when almost nothing was known about the WTC1 surviving core and perimeter sheet behavior.

Since BV was written some significant features of the collapse were observed and verified, showing that many of the concepts used in the paper like an indestructible upper block and a "crush down" happening before a "crush up" to be be incorrect. BV describes the downward continued collapse propagation of the building to be the result of columns buckling and rebuckling. The collapse propagation rate is taken as the rate of column rebuckling."
..............

Yes, these are true statements. If I was referring to BZ it would be untrue in a sense. BV derives equations of motion to match real building behavior. He derives a 1-D crush down equation based on continuous buckling and rebuckling of columns. This assumption is expressed in 2 ways within the derivation:

1) In his derivation of frictional force F
2) The way he treats the driving mass

This is different than the quote you gave, which is from BZ, a paper with a very different purpose and argument. The term most optimistic case for survival belongs with the BZ argument and has nothing to do with the BV equations of motion.
.......................

The concept of crush down, followed by crush up is from BV and BL. In BL he claims to prove that crush down must be complete before crush up can begin. If we read the study in the OP, that clearly did not happen.

Thanks for the feedback and let me know if you disagree with what I wrote.

 

[dafydd]

TAM. your feelings about the millions of people who cannot believe the official version of events are well known.)

Millions? As far as I can judge it's just a few nutters on the internet.I live in Belgium and I know only one mild non-active truther.There are a couple of loonies who go on the street sometimes in Brussels,but that's all. You must realize that you cannot accuse people of mass murder with no evidence and expect to be treated with respect.

 

[dafydd]

Trutherslie asks:

Can you explain to me how any explosives would survive
a. the impact of the jets
b. the ensuing fires

Or better yet, how anyone could KNOW where the jets would strike and then be able to install explosives which
a. no one noticied (Those floors were packed with people every day)
b. which would survive the impact of the jets and the ensuing fires.
.......................

These are good questions concerning initiation but they have nothing to do with the collapse propagation model or the study being discussed, so will only serve to distract from the present discussion.

Distraction would be useful from the point of view of people arguing that the ROOSD model contains no new information and is consistent with BV and BL, because I've asked some questions which will be very, very hard for for some of the participants to answer.

Otherwise known as avoiding the awkward questions.

 

[achimspok]

I think I see the logic here. Thermite fails as a demolition tool because it can't be used to sever a vertical column but, by suggesting the collapse of the composite floors will cause a natural collapse, he can now suggest thermite was used to sever the floor to column connections ( a horizontal cut).

I'm actually surprised it's taken this long to come up.

Can you explain a little bit? I'm not that intimate with thermite. How can a fire bring a building down if a much hotter fire cannot do it.

Oh, I think I see the logic here. Fire cannot do it at all. Is it correct? LOL

 

[funk de fino]

Can you explain a little bit? I'm not that intimate with thermite. How can a fire bring a building down if a much hotter fire cannot do it.

Oh, I think I see the logic here. Fire cannot do it at all. Is it correct? LOL

Have you got a translator for the above post?

 

[TruthersLie]

Trutherslie asks:

Can you explain to me how any explosives would survive
a. the impact of the jets
b. the ensuing fires

Or better yet, how anyone could KNOW where the jets would strike and then be able to install explosives which
a. no one noticied (Those floors were packed with people every day)
b. which would survive the impact of the jets and the ensuing fires.
.......................

These are good questions concerning initiation but they have nothing to do with the collapse propagation model or the study being discussed, so will only serve to distract from the present discussion.

Distraction would be useful from the point of view of people arguing that the ROOSD model contains no new information and is consistent with BV and BL, because I've asked some questions which will be very, very hard for for some of the participants to answer.

I'm sorry. It is not a distraction. You are trying to put forth the idea that it wouldn't take explosives on every other floor or every third floor as proposed by Dr. Steven Jones.

You are trying to make the case that you agree with some of bazants early work and from the BLBG paper that once the collapse was initiated, it would then propogate to the ground.

you are then trying to set up the argument that you don't need thousands of tons of explosives, just precise amounts of explosives to have ONE FLOOR fall 12 feet.

Since YOU bring up the idea of CD in your paper, then you need to defend
A. how any explosives would survive the aircraft impact without detonating.
B. how any explosives would survive the ensuing fires across multiple floors
C. how any explosives would be capable of working after A and B above.
D. ah yes... the elevator upgrades/fire supression upgrades on the floors where the jets struck would be the cover to plant the explosives.
E. that leads to how did the jets manage to strike the right floors on the towers? (which leads to other huge conspiracy questions)

You bring up CD, not me. So please provide the support to back up the claim.

I understand why you don't want to answer these simple questions, as they open up a whole can of worms you don't want to deal with. Such as the logistics, the inability to remote control the jets, where are the passengers, who did it, etc...

 

[Seymour Butz]

so survival of explosives is key to your propagation theory...as is the precision of striking the appropriate area with the aircraft, as to misstrike, in an area not set for initiation, but rather further down, might destroy tonnes of explosives design to propagate your CD collapse.

TAM

This is exactly why some twoofs lie and claim that they hear hundreds of explosives going off in videos.

They realize that this kind of precision from a fast moving airplane is impossible, and can be scientifically refuted beyond question.

So their stupidity/trolling tendencies takes over, and they actually believe that spewing these types of lies will count for something, since what they claim to be hearing can't be scientifically refuted. Yet.

Especially since they're a joke and no one is in a tizzy to actually refute their lies scientifically with an analysis of available audio tracks.

So for now, they're in their own little world, safe to claim whatever they want, until someone actually does the work. But we all know that once this is done, they will just change to thermxte; or denial; or like I've seen repeatedly, appeals to magic by stating that the-military-has-technology-that-we-don't-know-about-which-can-include-silent-explosives-prove-me-wrong.

So now, all Major Tom needs to do is prove that the planes can be flown to hit an exact target at high speeds that his ROOSD requires.

Never.
Gonna.
Happen.

 

[DGM]

Have you got a translator for the above post?

My "babble-fish" translates it as: "I have nothing to say so I'll say this".

 

[Major_Tom]

Newtons Bit and R Mackey claim that the study provides no new information that was not known before.

Unless participants in the JREF forum have abandoned Bazant's opinions stated in BV and BL, this is provably false.

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


CRUSH DOWN FOLLOWED BY CRUSH UP, 2006-2010, R. I. P.

BAZANT AND VERDURE EQUATIONS OF MOTION, EQS 12 AND 17, 2006-2010, R. I. P.


If we accept the ROOSD study as accurate, one logical consequence is that the claims in the papers BV and BL are incorrect.

But don't believe me because I'm just a stupid "troofer" with a low IQ.


Let's ask R Mackey and NB the following questions and see what they have to say:

1) In BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs. Does he mean this literally?

2) Do you consider the equations of motion in BL, equations 12 and 17, to be accurate considering the information in the ROOSD study?

3) Is the following statement true or false:

Dr Bazant believes that a crush-down phase must continue to completion before a crush up phase can begin.

If you answer false, please provide evidence to the contrary.

4) Is ROOSD consistent the claims of crush down preceding crush up in BV and BL?

 

[Telltale Tom]

I think the OOS, ROOSD, BV and BL should be RIP or BLT

And that you should rename your theory, the Super Hot Initiation Theory,
which people would find easier to remember.

While your theory does suggest how a controlled demolition could take place it also implies that all the evidence that is on the ae911truth web-site is all lies. Can it be the truth if you are saying that all the other evidence is false... that's tricky?

Why not present to next years Structures Congress in Pittsburgh to 5,000 engineers. I would like to see what reaction you get.

 

[T.A.M.]

Newtons Bit and R Mackey claim that the study provides no new information that was not known before.

Unless participants in the JREF forum have abandoned Bazant's opinions stated in BV and BL, this is provably false.

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


CRUSH DOWN FOLLOWED BY CRUSH UP, 2006-2010, R. I. P.

BAZANT AND VERDURE EQUATIONS OF MOTION, EQS 12 AND 17, 2006-2010, R. I. P.


If we accept the ROOSD study as accurate, one logical consequence is that the claims in the papers BV and BL are incorrect.

But don't believe me because I'm just a stupid "troofer" with a low IQ.


Let's ask R Mackey and NB the following questions and see what they have to say:

1) In BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs. Does he mean this literally?

2) Do you consider the equations of motion in BL, equations 12 and 17, to be accurate considering the information in the ROOSD study?

3) Is the following statement true or false:

Dr Bazant believes that a crush-down phase must continue to completion before a crush up phase can begin.

If you answer false, please provide evidence to the contrary.

4) Is ROOSD consistent the claims of crush down preceding crush up in BV and BL?

Truth Movement 2001 - 2008, RIP

TAM

 

[Newtons Bit]

Newtons Bit and R Mackey claim that the study provides no new information that was not known before.

Unless participants in the JREF forum have abandoned Bazant's opinions stated in BV and BL, this is provably false.

We've already posted quotes from people on this very forum that were talking about the vast majority of the columns not buckling in the collapse. You've acknowledged this fact. Do you have an incredibly short memory or do you routinely alter history in your mind to fit the new argument you wish to make?

If we accept the ROOSD study as accurate, one logical consequence is that the claims in the papers BV and BL are incorrect.

But don't believe me because I'm just a stupid "troofer" with a low IQ.

You have said so.

1) In BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs. Does he mean this literally?

2) Do you consider the equations of motion in BL, equations 12 and 17, to be accurate considering the information in the ROOSD study?

ffs Read the paper. Here, let me explain it to you:

The upper block is accelerating at near g. This means that there is very little force being applied to it. We can imply that the absolute maximum height of destruction occurring through the upper block will happen at a rate equal to (g - a). However the upper block has some residual strength. This force is much less than the original capacity upper block which is somewhere in the neighborhood of 3*m*g.

There will be, during the initial stages of the collapse that forms the rubble layer, destruction on both the upper block and lower block. But once it gets moving? Not so much.

You've provided no information on how this is incorrect.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Newtons Bit and R Mackey claim that the study provides no new information that was not known before.

Unless participants in the JREF forum have abandoned Bazant's opinions stated in BV and BL, this is provably false.

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


CRUSH DOWN FOLLOWED BY CRUSH UP, 2006-2010, R. I. P.

BAZANT AND VERDURE EQUATIONS OF MOTION, EQS 12 AND 17, 2006-2010, R. I. P.


If we accept the ROOSD study as accurate, one logical consequence is that the claims in the papers BV and BL are incorrect.

But don't believe me because I'm just a stupid "troofer" with a low IQ.


Let's ask R Mackey and NB the following questions and see what they have to say:

1) In BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs. Does he mean this literally?

2) Do you consider the equations of motion in BL, equations 12 and 17, to be accurate considering the information in the ROOSD study?

3) Is the following statement true or false:

Dr Bazant believes that a crush-down phase must continue to completion before a crush up phase can begin.

If you answer false, please provide evidence to the contrary.

4) Is ROOSD consistent the claims of crush down preceding crush up in BV and BL?

Really who cares what the exact crush down mode was and whether or not the top crushed up as well (I think it clearly would and did)?. I think we are all agreed on that once the top and especially the floors started moving the building was doomed to collapse as it did.

All that left to argue about what was the initiation mechanism. Since we have hi-def video of a plane hitting and huge damage and fires and that the initiation started exactly where the planes hit there are no longer any rational reasons for suspecting foul play in the collapse.
Now one can still fantasize about MIHOP and LIHOP but you have to face up the the facts that there was nothing even remotely suspicious about the collapses.

 

[Reactor drone]

We've already posted quotes from people on this very forum that were talking about the vast majority of the columns not buckling in the collapse. You've acknowledged this fact. Do you have an incredibly short memory or do you routinely alter history in your mind to fit the new argument you wish to make?

If we accept the ROOSD study as accurate, one logical consequence is that the claims in the papers BV and BL are incorrect.



You have said so.



ffs Read the paper. Here, let me explain it to you:

The upper block is accelerating at near g. This means that there is very little force being applied to it. We can imply that the absolute maximum height of destruction occurring through the upper block will happen at a rate equal to (g - a). However the upper block has some residual strength. This force is much less than the original capacity upper block which is somewhere in the neighborhood of 3*m*g.

There will be, during the initial stages of the collapse that forms the rubble layer, destruction on both the upper block and lower block. But once it gets moving? Not so much.

You've provided no information on how this is incorrect.

I think his main point is that photos show X number of floors of core remain standing after the collapse therefore the top of the building must have been destroyed before all of the lower section was.

I'm not sure whether the Bazant studies took into account the differences in the structure of the building with height or considered them to be homogeneous but either way I think expecting a precise description of a chaotic system is asking for a level of precision that isn't possible, much like the complaints about the WTC7 collapse model not looking exactly right.

 

[achimspok]

The upper block is accelerating at near g.

That's wrong.
1) The "upper block" accelerates at about 6.6m/s^2 until reaching a terminal velocity.
2) The "rubble layer" isn't really a layer. It's more like an avalanche that (for WTC1) first becomes visible at about floor 85. These avalanches didn't accelerate at all. These avalanches moved at velocities of 25-27m/s downwards at different elevations. (Smaller avalanches e.g. between floor 85 and 75 in the center of the west face reached about 100m/s suggesting a quasi simultaneous collapse of the short trusses due to a partially core collapse.)
3) Despite the fact of the "missing" acceleration of theses avalanches the SE avalanche started at the same elevation like the front of falling debris outside of the building.
By simple logic it is obvious that either the rubble moved faster than the "upper block" or the falling debris was delayed or the rubble started at a lower elevation than the 98th floor.

This means that there is very little force being applied to it.

That's wrong. A terminal velocity means force. It means also that any model of a consistent "upper block" is utter nonsense. Furthermore, Major Tom gave a pretty good description of what might have happen instead of some "hammer down" simplification. If true then these debris avalanches inside the tower separated the lions share of mass from the core. That explains the remaining part of the core pretty well. On the other hand it suggests that the missing part of the core either collapsed in front of the debris avalanches or at the very same time.

There will be, during the initial stages of the collapse that forms the rubble layer, destruction on both the upper block and lower block. But once it gets moving? Not so much.

Well, that's wrong. Once more and more masses are separated from the core structure of both parts (as implied by the MT article) the weaker steel structure directly impacts the increasingly stronger steel structure (except the hat truss). So it is reasonable to expect an early complete destruction of the so called upper part.

You've provided no information on how this is incorrect.

Let's say, not one of the whole bunch of papers about a consistent upper block theory provided any shred of information how this probably could be correct.