• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

OOS Collapse Propagation Model

Status
Not open for further replies.
ElMondoHummus said:
Nowhere in that post did you state that you considered it hypothetical or "potential".
Click to expand...
You seem to have a problem with the meaning of the word *theory*.

You still want to bug him about something he's been clear about?
Click to expand...
Bug him ? No. Quite sure he won't mind me asking him about it though. He's an affable fellow.

Why don't you ask Dr. Greening about Bazant instead, given that he's actually collaborated with him?
Click to expand...
There's a bit of discussion with him *back home* on the topic. David Benson too. Some of that directly with Major Tom. Which makes much of the JREF locals statements look a bit silly really. MT's observations about intent are partly through direct communication with those involved in writing the papers themselves. Am sure Dr. G. would give you his opinion, but, oh, JREF banned him, didn't they :) I'll maybe have a chat with him soon, but there's no doubt about the scope of Bazant et al in my opinion. You lot see clear definition of that scope as criticism, and that's just funny.
 
femr2 said:
You seem to have a problem with the meaning of the word *theory*.
Click to expand...

Theory =/= hypothesis, let alone mental exercise or hypothetical. Theories are deduced; "mental exercises" are processes of induction. I'd say you're the one with the problem.

femr2 said:
Bug him ? No. Quite sure he won't mind me asking him about it though. He's an affable fellow.
Click to expand...

And the point about him already having stated what he intended just flew right by you.

femr2 said:
There's a bit of discussion with him *back home* on the topic. David Benson too. Some of that directly with Major Tom. Which makes much of the JREF locals statements look a bit silly really. MT's observations about intent are partly through direct communication with those involved in writing the papers themselves. Am sure Dr. G. would give you his opinion, but, oh, JREF banned him, didn't they :) I'll maybe have a chat with him soon, but there's no doubt about the scope of Bazant et al in my opinion. You lot see clear definition of that scope as criticism, and that's just funny.
Click to expand...

No, we see it as reaching and failing to comprehend. Major Tom's the one trying to discuss WTC 7 in conjunction with Bazant's work, as well as failing to understand what Bazant was establishing. For being in "direct communication with those involved", he - and you - sure seem to misunderstand quite a fair bit of it.

Instead of centering your efforts around opposing us - we're nobody important as far as 9/11 is concerned; we're just a collection of forum posters who've studied the event - why don't you put your efforts into understanding what happened? No, fooling around on your truther forum "back home" doesn't count.
 
Myriad said:
It is not the papers themselves that rule out a controlled demolition; it is the facts, mathematics, and logic presented therein. If the papers did not exist, the laws of physics, the characteristics of the buildings, and the logical and mathematical implications of these would all be unchanged.

Also, the phrase "rule out" might be a bit misleading to some, who might read it as "rule out any possibility of" when it really means "rule out any need to consider as a hypothesis."
Click to expand...


Myriad said:
So, to clarify:

Bazant's papers (or rather, the reasoning contained therein) rule out any need to consider controlled demolition as a hypothesis (that is, a hypothesis that could overturn existing theory).
Click to expand...

Do Bazant's papers present facts, mathematics and logic that rule out any need to consider a CD hypothesis for collapse initiation?
 
bardamu said:
Do Bazant's papers present facts, mathematics and logic that rule out any need to consider a CD hypothesis for collapse initiation?
Click to expand...

What, if any, reason would Bazant et al have to consider a CD hypothesis?
 
femr2 said:
Am sure Dr. G. would give you his opinion, but, oh, JREF banned him, didn't they :)
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, he called someone's boss and tried to get them fired for what they were saying on this forum.
 
femr2 said:
Several of those could be caused by a fully natural collapse, so I don't really see why they are reasonable justification for exclusion of anything.
Click to expand...

Your logic is broken. Myriad listed a series of conditions that must be met by a collapse driven by explosives, and noted that none of these conditions were in fact met. Your claim that some of these conditions could be met by a natural collapse is a non sequitur. If they were not observed and they are necessary conditions for explosive demolition, then explosive demolition did not occur.

Dave
 
A common misunderstanding repeated by a few people is expressed in the quote:

Reactor drone mentioned: "Bazant adressed the CD features/telltales that had been brought up by the truthers at the time. You can't expect him to anticipate every iteration of CD hypothesis ever to be dreamt up by every truther for all time."

BLGB was published in 2008. In the forum page linked below I was having a conversation with two of the authors over the idea of OOS collapse propagation:

http://www.the911forum.freeforums.o...-twin-towers-and-collapse-mechanisms-t62.html

Notice how the thread was started by Frank Greening. Notice how most everyone agrees with something which sounds just liked the collapse mechanism described in the OOS collapse propagation study in the OP. They just use different words. Notice how I use the term "open office space flooring" a few years ago, and neither of the authors disagrees with me.

Notice how the posters do not insult each other constantly as is the accepted tendency of this forum. The only person posting on that thread who had a difficult time with the concept of OOS collapse propagation was Dr Benson, who was insisting that "crush down, then crush up" is a real concept applicable to WTC1.

Notice the posts were made in 2008.
....................................

As another example, on page 1 Dave Rogers wrote: "I've had a quick look through the paper, and I don't see anything particularly contentious about the hypothesis that the collapse progressed, broadly speaking, in the way you describe. I don't see anything contentious, either, about the statement that this mechanism does not prove that the collapse was unassisted by demolition devices; indeed, I suspect that no feature of collapse propagation could conceivably prove any such thing, because even a controlled demolition using explosives exhibits a natural collapse progression. It's collapse initiation that's the key differentiator in this instance. In the light of that, I would argue that your final section is tautological, and therefore not worth including. With that removed, what you have is potentially an interesting piece of analysis, although it could use a lot of development."

I think he is correct about collapse initiation and it doesn't take a genius to see it.

But now, some posters treat this idea of minimal explosives to initiate collapse while letting nature do most of the rest of the work as if it is a new idea presented by me in 2010.

It seems obvious to both Dave and myself that collapse initiation is the place to look. This was probably pretty obvious year ago. I remember Max Photon saying the same thing on this forum a few years ago.

Just about every one of of my favorite posters there, including Frank Greening, understood that collapse initiation is the key place to study a few years ago.

So when some of you say that Bazant (in 2008) covered the CD arguments as they were presented at the time (BLGB in 2008), you seem to be disagreeing with some of the paper's authors.
............................

Also interesting to note that one of the authors of BLGB (Frank Greening) disagrees with the posters here about WTC7. He has posted many unanswered questions about WTC7 and about the NIST report on WTC7.

As I mentioned earlier, when he was asked about the statement:

"Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain
the overall collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers. However, it remains to be checked whether the recent allegations of controlled demolition have any scientific merit. The present analysis proves that they do not."

He told me it wasn't his idea to include it in the paper. He did not defend the statement, even though he is one of the authors.
 
Last edited:
Major_Tom said:
I think he is correct about collapse initiation and it doesn't take a genius to see it.

But now, some posters treat this idea of minimal explosives to initiate collapse while letting nature do most of the rest of the work as if it is a new idea presented by me in 2010.

It seems obvious to both Dave and myself that collapse initiation is the place to look. This was probably pretty obvious year ago. I remember Max Photon saying the same thing on this forum a few years ago.
Click to expand...

Then why have you started a thread on a conspiracy theories forum to discuss collapse propagation, when by your own admission it's irrelevant to conspiracy theories; and why do you refuse, repeatedly, to move on to a subject that is relevant?

I think that, if you don't move on to collapse initiation soon, I'll have to report the thread. You've knowingly started a discussion on a topic irrelevant to the forum subject matter, and insisted on prolonging it beyond all reason. This is getting very close to a deliberate infraction of the forum rules. If you want to discuss the engineering aspects of building collapses with particular reference to the WTC collapses, we have a forum for science, mathematics, medicine and technology, which would be entirely suitable. Until you're ready to move on, take your argument there please.

Dave
 
Major_Tom, the fact that you have made 314 posts without learning the "QUOTE" function does not speak well for your engineering skills. The absence of mathematics, similarly, is not cause for confidence in your ... theories.

The most glaring fault, however, in your continued failure here is the absence of any theory at all to explain the events of 9/11. Why is this?
 
I didn't expect such massive resistance to the study in the OP. I realized that most of the people posting here use the Bazant papers like a security blanket.

I assumed that people would quickly be able to see that ideas like "crush down, then crush up" cannot be applied to WTC1 as Bazant does. Instead, I realized that there is a type of cult within your forum consisting of "Bazant followers" who see some perfection within the papers that does not exist.

For this reason I needed to post reviews on BZ, BV and BLGB. I was very surprised to learn how few of you are capable of understanding the papers. This is why the Bazant papers have been discussed for so long in this thread, much to my disappointment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Carlitos how did you do with these structural questions?

1) Were the core columns (CC) around the 98th floor box columns or H beams?
2) Each column section is about 36 ft long, spanning 3 floors. How were the columns connected to each other at that elevation? Were they welded, bolted or both?
3) Were the CC to CC connections for adjacent columns staggered relative to each other, or are the CC to CC connections for all 47 CCs at the exact same elevations?
4) If the connections for all 47 CCs were at the exact same elevations, on which floors are they located around the collapse initiation area.

I'm sure you can agree that estimates of the amount of explosives needed cannot be answered unless you know where the core column (CC) connections are and how they are connected.

We would be looking to see if there was a natural seam through the 98th floor of WTC1 that can be exploited to intentionally initiate collapse.

I asked the readers to answer these questions themselves or just admit they cannot, in which case I will provide the answers.

Carlitos, you did neither.

How much research did the regular posters here do on the collapse initiation region of WTC1 if you cannot answer these questions?

Why not just admit you cannot answer these questions? Why not ask your fellow posters like Newton's Bit or R Mackey for the answers if you find them so wise?
 
Last edited:
Major_Tom said:
I'm sure you can agree that estimates of the amount of explosives needed cannot be answered unless you know where the core column (CC) connections are and how they are connected.
Click to expand...
The amount of explosive energy needed is exactly equal to the amount of Godzilla energy, the amount of sharks-with-lasers energy, and the amount of nuclear energy.

Your question, in other words, is without premise.
 
Those are unimportant questions concerning the possibility of CD and WTC1 collapse initiation?

WTC1 collapse initiation occurred through the 98th floor at an angle of failure much less than what is mentioned in the NIST reports. A natural bolted seam though every core column though the 98th floor is unimportant?
 
I'm sure you can agree that estimates of the amount of explosives needed cannot be answered unless you know where the core column (CC) connections are and how they are connected.
Click to expand...

Since there is no evidence of ANY explosives being used at all how does quantity matter?......zero evidence of one pound of explosives looks just like zero evidence of one million pounds...........

"We would be looking to see if there was a natural seam through the 98th floor of WTC1 that can be exploited to intentionally initiate collapse."

Why? what motive would there be for deliberately collapsing a building that has been shown that will fail anyways if hit by a High speed 767 full of fuel?
What was so important that conspirators would need two ways of bringing the towers down? what was to be gained other than greatly increasing the chances of being found out?
 
Sheeples asks: "Why? what motive would there be for deliberately collapsing a building that has been shown that will fail anyways if hit by a High speed 767 full of fuel?"

Who showed WTC1 collapse initiation was inevitable? (WTC1 was hit on the north side but failed southwards.) You believe the NIST proved that?

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

Two more questions for those who believe the NIST report was accurate:

How much does the NIST say that the top of WTC1 tilted before collectively falling downward?

How much did it actually tilt before collectively falling downward?
 
Since I haven't received many answers to the questions posed so far, I'll give you some big hints:

A condensed but thorough summary of how the NIST explain the initial sequence of buckling which led to collapse of WTC1 is in NCSTAR 1-6D, Ch 5, section 5.2, p312 to 318 (draft form from p305 to 312), in a section titled "WTC 1 Collapse Sequence" and 1-6draft 9.3.1, p 287-295 in a section titled "Probable collapse sequence of WTC1". Relevant sections are reproduced below.


...................

1-6D, p 312:

Table 5–1. Summary of main events that led to the collapse of WTC 1.
Event Number........ Event
1 .......................Aircraft impact
2 .......................Unloading of core
3 .......................Sagging of floors and floor/wall disconnections
4........................Bowing of the south wall
5 .......................Buckling of south wall and collapse initiation
Click to expand...


1-6D, pg 314:

Bowing of South Wall

The exterior columns on the south wall bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures, pull-in forces from the floors beginning at 80 min, and additional gravity loads redistributed from the core. Figure 5–6 shows the observed and the estimated inward bowing of the south wall at 97 min after impact (10:23 a.m.). Since no bowing was observed on the south wall at 69 min (9:55 a.m.), as shown in Table 5–2, it is estimated that the south wall began to bow inward at around 80 min when the floors on the south side began to substantially sag. The inward bowing of the south wall increased with time due to
continuing floor sagging and increased temperatures on the south wall as shown in Figs. 4–42 and 5–7. At 97 min (10:23 a.m.), the maximum bowing observed was about 55 in. (see Fig. 5–6).

Buckling of South Wall and Collapse Initiation

With continuously increased bowing, as more columns buckled, the entire width of the south wall buckled inward. Instability started at the center of the south wall and rapidly progressed horizontally toward the sides. As a result of the buckling of the south wall, the south wall significantly unloaded (Fig. 5–3),
redistributing its load to the softened core through the hat truss and to the south side of the east and west walls through the spandrels. The onset of this load redistribution can be found in the total column loads in the WTC 1 global model at 100 min in the bottom line of Table 5–3. At 100 min, the north, east, and
west walls at Floor 98 carried about 7 percent, 35 percent, and 30 percent more gravity loads than the state after impact, and the south wall and the core carried about 7 percent and 20 percent less loads, respectively. The section of the building above the impact zone tilted to the south (observed at about 8°,
Table 5–2) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall along the adjacent east and west walls (see Fig. 5–8), resulting in increased gravity load on the core columns. The release of potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain
energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued.
Click to expand...



1-6draft, p 288, Table 9-5 titled "Observations for WTC1", fifth entry:
and
1-6D, p 312, Table 5-2, last entry

Tower began to collapse – first exterior sign of collapse was at
Floor 98. Rotation of at least 8 degrees to the south occurred before
the building section began to fall vertically under gravity.
Click to expand...

1-6draft p 290, figure 9-8 on probable collapse initiation sequence for WTC1:

3. Collapse Initiation
• The inward bowing of the south wall induced column instability, which progressed rapidly horizontally across the entire south face.
• The south wall unloaded and tried to redistribute the loads via the hat truss to the thermally weakened core and via the spandrels to the adjacent east and west walls.
• The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces; not only the bowed and buckled south face) to the south (at least about 8º) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall along the adjacent east and west walls.
• The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued.
Click to expand...

1-6draft, p 294:

Buckling of South Wall and Collapse Initiation

The inward bowing of the south wall increased as the post-buckling strength of bowed columns continued to reduce. The bowed columns increased the loads on the unbuckled columns on the south wall by shear transfer through the spandrels. Consequently instability progressed horizontally, and when it engulfed the entire south wall, it progressed along the east and west walls. Moreover, the unloading of the south wall resulted in further redistribution of gravity loads on the south wall to the east and west walls and to the thermally weakened core via the hat truss. At 100 min, the north, the east, and the west walls at Floor 98 carried about 7 percent, 35 percent, and 30 percent more gravity loads than the state after impact, and the south wall and the core carried about 7 percent and 20 percent less loads, respectively. The section of the building above the impact zone began tilting to the south at least about 8° as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall along the adjacent east and west walls, as shown in Fig. 9–13. The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could have been absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued.
Click to expand...


1-6draft, p 317:

Finding 26: The WTC 1 building section above the impact and fire area tilted to the south as the structural collapse initiated. The tilt was toward the side of the building that had the long span floors. Video records taken from east and west viewpoints showed that the upper building section tilted to the south. Video records taken from a north viewpoint showed no discernable east or west component in the tilt. A tilt to the south of at least 8 degrees occurred before dust clouds obscured the view and the building section began to fall downwards.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom