Seymour Butz
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 884
OOS Collapse Propagation Model
- Thread starter Major_Tom
- Start date
- Status
Could you expand upon this claim.
"Current measurements of the initial deformations points to early core sagging and failure before any visible perimeter movement was detected, contrary to the NIST conclusion that south perimeter destabilization initiated the collapse. Data confirming these findings will be the subject of a separate paper to be released soon."
"Current measurements of the initial deformations points to early core sagging and failure before any visible perimeter movement was detected, contrary to the NIST conclusion that south perimeter destabilization initiated the collapse. Data confirming these findings will be the subject of a separate paper to be released soon."
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
I may be wrong,but isn't beachnut an aircraft accident investigator? What are your qualifications,apart from owning a computer and a keyboard?
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
Even if true, so what? Interesting to a structural Engineer (guessing here, but I think they have way better grasp of what happened than anyone here) so they can design better buildings in future, but utterly irrelevant to 911.
You are counting angels dancing on the head of a pin.
Yes, that's a simplification of the ultimate collapse mechanism they describe. But they also proved unprotected steel temperatures above 600 °C. To me that's enough proof that they were doomed. Just as what happened to this unprotected steel:
On the quote function: How about this...
Each time I quote someone directly I'll include a linkable post number. Or I'll just avoid quoting.
>>>>>>>>>>
Pgimeno, that is their collapse mechanism. I quoted it directly from their report many times in this thread. They claim that for WTC1 south wall instability caused by sagging flooring in the OOS south region was the mechanism of collapse.
They said that the inward bowing along the south perimeter originally observed about 10:06 was due to sagging floor slabs. That is their proposed mechanism as I've shown many times in their own words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sheeplesnshills:
Recorded comments over the last 20 pages clearly show that most posters are not capable of admitting to any errors within the Bazant papers or the NIST reports. They will find a way to justify any mistake no matter how obvious or how absurd.
That is what I have been dealing with here. Most of my posts have been focussed on trying to overcome the ingrained illusion that these papers and reports are perfect and address the central issues of CD, mainly the moments of collapse initiation.
If you and pgimeno are willing to admit to mistakes in the NIST reports, you do not represent the large majority of the posters (which is good).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Kent1, from the information presented in this thread so far, it is pretty clear that a detailed study of the earliest detectable movement of WTC1 has never been done. This is the most important time frame to look for evidence of a CD, yet current knowledge is so poor that nobody seems to be able to tell whether the core or perimeter failed first.
If nobody can tell through the available video whether the core or perimeter failed first, it is safe to say that nobody seems to know squat about the order and speed of the initiation events.
If such a study is done (the topic of an upcoming paper) and it can be shown the earliest detectable drift, tilt and failure sequence are in direct contradiction to that stated by the NIST, this means they were wrong about WTC1.
Current data strongly suggests that WTC1 was "pulled down" through the core. For the details you'll have to stay tuned. Data will be released when it is ready for public consumption.
Each time I quote someone directly I'll include a linkable post number. Or I'll just avoid quoting.
>>>>>>>>>>
Pgimeno, that is their collapse mechanism. I quoted it directly from their report many times in this thread. They claim that for WTC1 south wall instability caused by sagging flooring in the OOS south region was the mechanism of collapse.
They said that the inward bowing along the south perimeter originally observed about 10:06 was due to sagging floor slabs. That is their proposed mechanism as I've shown many times in their own words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sheeplesnshills:
Recorded comments over the last 20 pages clearly show that most posters are not capable of admitting to any errors within the Bazant papers or the NIST reports. They will find a way to justify any mistake no matter how obvious or how absurd.
That is what I have been dealing with here. Most of my posts have been focussed on trying to overcome the ingrained illusion that these papers and reports are perfect and address the central issues of CD, mainly the moments of collapse initiation.
If you and pgimeno are willing to admit to mistakes in the NIST reports, you do not represent the large majority of the posters (which is good).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Kent1, from the information presented in this thread so far, it is pretty clear that a detailed study of the earliest detectable movement of WTC1 has never been done. This is the most important time frame to look for evidence of a CD, yet current knowledge is so poor that nobody seems to be able to tell whether the core or perimeter failed first.
If nobody can tell through the available video whether the core or perimeter failed first, it is safe to say that nobody seems to know squat about the order and speed of the initiation events.
If such a study is done (the topic of an upcoming paper) and it can be shown the earliest detectable drift, tilt and failure sequence are in direct contradiction to that stated by the NIST, this means they were wrong about WTC1.
Current data strongly suggests that WTC1 was "pulled down" through the core. For the details you'll have to stay tuned. Data will be released when it is ready for public consumption.
Last edited:
Pgimeno, WTC1 and 7 had structures on the roof. It is possible to detect general core activity by carefully observing these structures, a huge advantage to a researcher.
For WTC2, you can only see the perimeter. This is why I choose to present information on WTC1 and 7 before applying the knowledge thus gained to WTC2.
For WTC2, you can only see the perimeter. This is why I choose to present information on WTC1 and 7 before applying the knowledge thus gained to WTC2.
Instructions on using the quote function have been provided for you in this very thread. You seriously can't figure it out? And I should take your opinion on complex engineering treatises why, exactly?
All of this is a lie.Major_Tom said:
If your way of avoiding quoting leaves clear what part you're replying to, it might work for me. You didn't do very well in that respect so far.
BTW, what does the >>>>>>>>>> mean? I don't recognize it as a standard symbol in literature, unless it means "much much much much much much much much much greater than", which doesn't make much sense where you use it.
I would have thought you said the animated gif in post #800 also showed core activity. Isn't there an equivalent one for WTC2?
As is made clear, a primary intention of the study is to negate the claims still being made by such groups as AE911T and similar about the primary mechanism of destruction. Such groups still claim things like floor-by-floor explosives, which, as you are so fond of saying, is *woo*. The ROOSD study additionally specifies the process in terms of observables, and so is clearer than the other studies and papers kicking around for those unwilling or unable to immerse themselves in either the mathematics of Bazant et al, or the tedium and repetition of the NIST tomes (especially given the brevity of their actual conclusions). Bazant et al describe a limiting case post initiation mathematical model, which does not match observables (and is not intended to). NIST do not touch the post initiation behaviour at all. The study serves to allow people and groups who think the *woo* of per-floor explosive demolition is fact to be shown clear proof that they are wrong.
Do I think the study needs some editing, expansion and clarification ? Sure. The utter brick wall of nonsense that has ensued here is probably a good reason why it's content has been quite static recently. Far, far too many folk round this ere neck-o-the-woods utterly incapable of recognising the huge gap in the *established* texts, their limitations and problems. The exceedingly-bizarre-at-times JREF group-think malarky. Frequently humerous to watch.
You object to the inclusion of details at the end of the study which clarifies that the scope of the mechanism is post-initiation, and as such does not prove *CD* nor disprove *CD*. Personally I don't think there should be such a fuss about the inclusion. If it was removed, I wouldn't have an issue either. The ROOSD mechanism itself is a higher priority for retention.
You serve no purpose Beachnut. Thou dost presume too much also
Last edited:
Your best effort to support your CD delusion made up out of ignorance; good job. Zero evidence and 8 years of failure; the funnies thing I have learned about 911 truth movement is how easily they are fooled; like you you calling the dumbest papers in the world, some of them authored by insane people, "technical papers". Have you fixed that yet?...
You serve no purpose Beachnut. Thou dost presume too much also
The delusion of CD failed; time to move on. But no, a paper is made up with no purpose but to allow CD with carefully placed charges and super secret preparation. ... serves no purpose past spreading lies = 911 truth and the moronic CD delusions you have.
Did you help Major Tom with his math? What engineering school did you and Major Tom go to? Did you go to engineering school? Did Major Tom go to engineering school? Did you guys graduate?
The inclusion of CD is nonsense; you can't defend nonsense with your own failed delusional CD conclusions and lack of evidence.
Mentioning Bazant proves no understanding of engineering. Major Tom's paper serves no purpose, it was pointed out in the first page; nothing has changed, the entire 911 truth movement serves no purpose except to those making money off of gullible people who lack knowledge.
Last edited:
Wow. That's nearly, almost the most nonsensical pile of gibberish I've yet seen you spew. Suggest a holiday. It's summer time. Hit the beach(nut) and chillax dude
Carll68
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2009
- Messages
- 324
BN, I am quite certain that you realize the following point, but, in case you do not, and for the benefit of others, it is worth repeating:
FEMR2 does not grasp simple physics. Nope....no joke. I point blank asked him a simple text book physics question and he failed to answer correctly numerous times..then tried to back in the correct answer mixed with the wrong answer.
Keep this in mind when you are arguing with him.
He is a loony uneducated mess who spends day and night on the internet spreading moronic woo.
No engineering school? That explains being fooled by the woo papers you call, "technical papers". ?Wow. That's nearly, almost the most nonsensical pile of gibberish I've yet seen you spew. Suggest a holiday. It's summer time. Hit the beach(nut) and chillax dude
http://femr2.ucoz.com/index/0-4
Did the list of tech papers grow smaller? lol (what happen to the insane termite tech papers?; did you discover they were published in a vanity journal?)
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
No longer a "techical paper You are encouraged to read? Why?
And this one? What happen? - The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis
You could come clean and confess you have joined reality as soon as you rid Ross's work, and Kuttler's delusions from your list of, "technical papers". What happen to the the work on thermite? lol; when is Jones publishing his work on how the United States caused the earthquake in Haiti; will you join him on that work? Will that be added to your tech paper list? Do your stricter standards on what 911 tech paper is doom Major Tom's nonsense? Why did you drop Jones thermite junk?
Last edited:
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Wow. That's nearly, almost the most nonsensical pile of gibberish I've yet seen you spew. Suggest a holiday. It's summer time. Hit the beach(nut) and chillax dude
Have you got CGSE or O Level physics?
Beachnut keeps asking about "the math". I assume he means mathematics which attempt to simulate ROOSD activity and compare it with observed collapse propagation rates.
Excellent attempts at collapse propagation computer simulations exploring the the work of Frank Greening, the Bazant concept of crush up and crush down and ROOSD is available at a different forum.
To discuss them, I need to refer to the work of poster OneWhiteEye at The 9/11 Forum, who probably has the best collection of work on the subject.
I believe OneWhiteEye is banned from this forum, like Frank Greening. To discuss the mathematics of collapse propagation I need to refer to his work, since it is probably the best on the internet.
Moderators, May I refer to his work?
......................................
Beachnut, since you seem so proud of your abilities as an engineer, I look forward to getting your opinion of the variety of 1-D simulations run thus far and their meaning.
Like Dr Bazant, many of you are probably not aware that collapse propagation rates were measured over a large distance down the SW corner of WTC1 a while ago.
People have been trying to match the properties of the data to 1-D simulations with widely varying physical parameters. The best efforts have been by OneWhiteEye.
Moderators may I please link to his work, if only to stifle Beachnut? (Something you should all thank me for. I wouild be ashamed to allow him to represent my views as many of you do)
Excellent attempts at collapse propagation computer simulations exploring the the work of Frank Greening, the Bazant concept of crush up and crush down and ROOSD is available at a different forum.
To discuss them, I need to refer to the work of poster OneWhiteEye at The 9/11 Forum, who probably has the best collection of work on the subject.
I believe OneWhiteEye is banned from this forum, like Frank Greening. To discuss the mathematics of collapse propagation I need to refer to his work, since it is probably the best on the internet.
Moderators, May I refer to his work?
......................................
Beachnut, since you seem so proud of your abilities as an engineer, I look forward to getting your opinion of the variety of 1-D simulations run thus far and their meaning.
Like Dr Bazant, many of you are probably not aware that collapse propagation rates were measured over a large distance down the SW corner of WTC1 a while ago.
People have been trying to match the properties of the data to 1-D simulations with widely varying physical parameters. The best efforts have been by OneWhiteEye.
Moderators may I please link to his work, if only to stifle Beachnut? (Something you should all thank me for. I wouild be ashamed to allow him to represent my views as many of you do)
Carll68
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2009
- Messages
- 324
Moderators don't have all-seeing eyes; you have to PM them if you want something.
Is the big secret theory coming any time soon?
tap...tap...tap.....
Waiting....
tap...tap...tap....
Guess the Big secret theory and exceptional evidence that will blow the whole story wide open, to be provided by some anonymous internet poster with the cool screen name of 'onewhiteeye' simply isnt coming....
In the mean time, however, we can look forward to the kid without a basic understanding of physcis, code named 'femr2'...sans a relevent degree, breaking the news story to the world through his flawed video analysis...
Ohhhhh..how the dirth of stupid from the truthers makes me laugh....
- Status