OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[beachnut]

I knew there were a few remaining Bazantista pockets of resistance remaining.

...

You can't comprehend models, stop showing why you never went to engineering school and now suffer from repeating your failed posts due to your belief in an inside job, and calling the gravity collapse an illusion. You are crazy about your CD claims, so you repeat your failed attempt to back in CD. Attacking papers proves you are not an engineer and don't understand models. Where is your math?

 

[Major_Tom]

So Pgimeno and Beachnut. TFK, being a professional engineer, would you like join the last of the remaining Bazantistas and go on record as remaining firm in your resolve?

TFK, can you explain what the virtues of the Bazant crush down, then crush up model are applied to WTC1 and 2 and what my misunderstandings are about BV, BL and BLGB?

C'mon cowboy, school me on those papers.

 

[NoahFence]

 

[beachnut]

So Pgimeno and Beachnut. TFK, being a professional engineer, would you like join the last of the remaining Bazantistas and go on record as remaining firm in your resolve?

TFK, can you explain what the virtues of the Bazant crush down, then crush up model are applied to WTC1 and 2 and what my misunderstandings are about BV, BL and BLGB?

C'mon cowboy, school me on those papers.

Write a rebuttal paper, publish in a Journal, I can't wait to see if you surpass Heiwa's delusional try.

When will your paper be published? Show us all how it is done. Come on CD theory, find your Satan, publish your paper, prove CD, be all you can be in 911 truth. Stand up, take some action! Save us from Satan. How is your CD claim going? Got the math to make your model work? Is the gravity collapse an illusion to cover the crime?

 

[NoahFence]

Just as an aside - if someone were to publish such a paper, wouldn't they be in line for a TON of cash?

Gage should be all over THAT.

 

[Major_Tom]

NoahFence, I had not mistaken you for someone who cares.

Someone who cares would use critical thinking.


Would anyone else like to join Beachnut and Pgimeno in defending the Bazant crush down, then crush up model?

 

[NoahFence]

Maybe that sells here. Anything anti-truther sells here.

There's a reason for that.

Truthers are idiots.

 

[Major_Tom]

There is a tendency to consider the information presented in the WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics study as "old".

Newton's Bit demonstrates....

It's an acronym he made up that essentially means progressive collapse. He's unfamiliar with engineering in general and collapse dynamics in particular so it's not surprising that he wasn't aware something already existed explaining the phenomena.

The only academic papers on the mechanism of collapse progression for WTC1 and 2 are:

Bazant, Zhao: Why did WTC Collapse

Bazant, Verdure: Progressive Collapse Mechanics

Bazant, Le: Closure to Collapse Mechanics

Bazant-Le-Greening-Benson..:WTC Collapse

Keith Seffen: Progressive Collapse

The WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics is the only mapping of the ROOSD progression process and the falling of the perimeter walls of the twin towers on the planet. There is nothing equivalent within any academic or professional literature to date.


Consider this same foggy belief expressed below:

This is Heiwa rev.2 isn't it?

I'm outta here. You can't reason with the mentally infirm. I'll just leave this behind:

You claim that you have "Debunked" what is essentially what is a well understood phenomena in structural collapses that has happened many many times prior to 9/11 (just in not such a spectacular fashion caught on film from many angles). If you have done so then I suggest that you submit a paper to a recognized journal explaining what exactly was wrong with the previous description of the phenomena (just a forewarning, you will have to use math and words with a lot of syllables). If it is as you claim (that you debunked it) then you my friend will become world renowned within the engineering community for seeing something that hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of engineers have overlooked for well over a century.

Please keep us informed as to your progress on that front. We all could use the laugh.

My bold. He believes that there is some accurate, superior description of the true WTC1 and 2 progression mechanism published somewhere, but he has no clue where it is. There is some "previous description of the phenomenon" given by some "expert". If he is asked to produce it, he can't be bothered to "reason with the mentally infirm".

There is some strange belief that somebody in the professional or academic community has already discovered the true collapse mechanism of the twin towers.

Yet nobody seems to know where the explanation is.

Recall how R Mackey expresses the same thing on page 2 of this thread, over 1 year ago:

Except, of course, that a large number of the connector flanges from the fire floors (viz. the collapse initiation floors) survived, and none of them were cut at all, let alone by thermite.

The whole line of investigation is ridiculous. What unanswered question does this paper purport to examine? None. Existing, reliable, reviewed scientific literature covers it quite thoroughly. All the made-up acronyms and appeals for attention are no more than fatuous Truther narcissism.

My bold. The same belief that it already exists somewhere while he still was still expressing the collapses as a crush down, then crush up fantasy.

Once again, the same illusion expressed and reinforced. Some WIzard, somewhere, has already explained it all but nobody can link to the magic paper.

 

[Oz1976]

This is a joke. Run away? What a joke.

You need this illogical environment to communicate, not me. I communicate elsewhere for obvious reasons.

You already know where to get the information you need. If this is your preferred envoronment for communication, it shows how serious you are.

This is your choice of medium. I would never live in this mess.

It is a place whree nobody need take responsibility for incorrect information. People do not check the work of "friends". Cult-like.

The results of such self-stroking are apparent. No real data but people don't seem to care. You should get a lot of great feedback here. Good luck.

You're right. You communicate on a "truther" dominated site for the obvious reason that you can't take criticism of your ideas on skeptic forums, and to feel empowered by your "wealth of knowledge" on the subject by the peons propping you up. That forum, no matter how it's dressed up, is a "truther" forum, nothing more. Everyone there is like-minded trying to prove in some way that it was an inside job, with a rare nay-sayer here and there.

There was no CD of WTC 1, 2 or 7. You allude in another thread here to "structural manipulation" at the point of collapse initiation. Pray tell how they setup these "structural manipulations" in advance of plane impacts that could not be predetermined? Or are you also alluding that the planes had exact impact zones they were setup to hit?

 

[beachnut]

There is a tendency to consider the information presented in the WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics study as "old".
...
the collapses as a crush down, then crush up fantasy.

Once again, the same illusion expressed and reinforced. Some WIzard, somewhere, has already explained it all but nobody can link to the magic paper.

Attacking models again. Publish your work, show the engineering world getting a degree is a waste of money when all you have to do is watch videos and make up opinions on what you think happened.

It's an acronym he made up that essentially means progressive collapse. He's unfamiliar with engineering in general and collapse dynamics in particular so it's not surprising that he wasn't aware something already existed explaining the phenomena.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

There is a tendency to consider the information presented in the WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics study as "old".

Newton's Bit demonstrates....




The only academic papers on the mechanism of collapse progression for WTC1 and 2 are:

Bazant, Zhao: Why did WTC Collapse

Bazant, Verdure: Progressive Collapse Mechanics

Bazant, Le: Closure to Collapse Mechanics

Bazant-Le-Greening-Benson..:WTC Collapse

Keith Seffen: Progressive Collapse

The WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics is the only mapping of the ROOSD progression process and the falling of the perimeter walls of the twin towers on the planet. There is nothing equivalent within any academic or professional literature to date.


Consider this same foggy belief expressed below:





My bold. He believes that there is some accurate, superior description of the true WTC1 and 2 progression mechanism published somewhere, but he has no clue where it is. There is some "previous description of the phenomenon" given by some "expert". If he is asked to produce it, he can't be bothered to "reason with the mentally infirm".

There is some strange belief that somebody in the professional or academic community has already discovered the true collapse mechanism of the twin towers.

Yet nobody seems to know where the explanation is.

Recall how R Mackey expresses the same thing on page 2 of this thread, over 1 year ago:



My bold. The same belief that it already exists somewhere while he still was still expressing the collapses as a crush down, then crush up fantasy.

Once again, the same illusion expressed and reinforced. Some WIzard, somewhere, has already explained it all but nobody can link to the magic paper.

Fine then, so you think that the mechanism of progressive and/or pancaking collapse has never been looked at before and that you're the first one to notice this oversight. Is that what you're saying?

Ronan Point. Look it up. The explanation that you're looking for is there. Over thirty years before the world trade center collapses. If you had bothered to do even basic research on the subject you'd know that that collapse is very well known in the engineering community and the entire event was studied in excruciating detail. It's taught in every engineering school that I know of. The mechanisms and causes of progressive collapse and pancaking are well known, that YOU don't know them is very evident in your posts.

What you seen to want is an exhaustive study on the progressive collapses and pancaking that went with it in the WTC. Nobody is going to spend millions of dollars to re-invent the wheel just to come out at the end and say that if it's round it will roll.

So like I said in the other thread that you quoted me from. If you have found some new and previously unknown or misunderstood aspect of a progressive collapse then by all means publish a paper in an established reputable journal. But I already know that you won't, you think that it was explosives and you know deep in your heart of hearts that if you submitted a paper saying that that you would be laughed out of the building. What's even sadder is that even though it's been explained here and elsewhere to you and others, you still won't understand why that is.

 

[Major_Tom]

Fine then, so you think that the mechanism of progressive and/or pancaking collapse has never been looked at before and that you're the first one to notice this oversight. Is that what you're saying?

Ronan Point. Look it up. The explanation that you're looking for is there. Over thirty years before the world trade center collapses. If you had bothered to do even basic research on the subject you'd know that that collapse is very well known in the engineering community and the entire event was studied in excruciating detail. It's taught in every engineering school that I know of. The mechanisms and causes of progressive collapse and pancaking are well known, that YOU don't know them is very evident in your posts.

What you seen to want is an exhaustive study on the progressive collapses and pancaking that went with it in the WTC. Nobody is going to spend millions of dollars to re-invent the wheel just to come out at the end and say that if it's round it will roll.

So like I said in the other thread that you quoted me from. If you have found some new and previously unknown or misunderstood aspect of a progressive collapse then by all means publish a paper in an established reputable journal. But I already know that you won't, you think that it was explosives and you know deep in your heart of hearts that if you submitted a paper saying that that you would be laughed out of the building. What's even sadder is that even though it's been explained here and elsewhere to you and others, you still won't understand why that is.

Ronan point? We are talking about the WTC Twin Towers collapses almost 10 years after the event.

Do you have a single professional or academic paper which identifies the true collapse propagation mechanism of the famous WTC twin towers? You do not. Bazant is the best you have, and that isn't very good at all.


Ronan Point. You are funny.


Sam: "What you seen to want is an exhaustive study on the progressive collapses and pancaking that went with it in the WTC."


No. I already have a collapse model that matches all observables called "WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics".

You have "crush down, then crush up".


What you have is an illusion. I have been pointing that out for a while now (over a year in this thread alone).

 

[femr2]

Fine then, so you think that the mechanism of progressive and/or pancaking collapse has never been looked at before and that you're the first one to notice this oversight. Is that what you're saying?

I quite like this quote...

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Interesting eh ?

Ronan Point. Look it up. The explanation that you're looking for is there. Over thirty years before the world trade center collapses. If you had bothered to do even basic research on the subject you'd know that that collapse is very well known in the engineering community and the entire event was studied in excruciating detail. It's taught in every engineering school that I know of. The mechanisms and causes of progressive collapse and pancaking are well known, that YOU don't know them is very evident in your posts.

What you seen to want is an exhaustive study on the progressive collapses and pancaking that went with it in the WTC. Nobody is going to spend millions of dollars to re-invent the wheel just to come out at the end and say that if it's round it will roll.

So like I said in the other thread that you quoted me from. If you have found some new and previously unknown or misunderstood aspect of a progressive collapse then by all means publish a paper in an established reputable journal.

Hmmm. Do you agree that the primary post-initiation mechanism of destruction for WTC 1 & 2 was Runaway Open Office Space Desctruction..aka progressive failure of the composite floor system that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns consisting of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab...aka pancaking ?

Yeah, yeah, initiation, post-initiation. However, which WTC report acurately describes the primary post-initiation mechanism of desctruction ? Please provide a link.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

NIST didn't need to reinvent the wheel. Once the initiation phase had completed there were already previous studies as to what happened. If there's a head on car crash tomorrow where both cars were going 50+ MPH and everyone in the vehicles died the police won't be performing an in depth study or call in the NTSB to find out why the people died. What they will do is try to find out why the cars crashed in the first place. That's essentially what NIST did. They determined why the collapses started. There was no and (still) is no need to exhaustively re-study why once it started it continued on beyond the initial collapse point other than to say that the dynamic loading exceeded the capacity of the building to support it even when looked at in an absolute best case scenario, which is what they did. It's a waste of time and money to do otherwise.

 

[femr2]

NIST didn't...

...support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers.

Please answer my questions...

• Do you agree that the primary post-initiation mechanism of destruction for WTC 1 & 2 was Runaway Open Office Space Desctruction..aka progressive failure of the composite floor system that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns consisting of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab...aka pancaking ?
  
• Which WTC report accurately describes the primary post-initiation mechanism of desctruction ? Please provide a link. If you do not think there is such a report, simply say so.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

...support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers.

Please answer my questions...

• Do you agree that the primary post-initiation mechanism of destruction for WTC 1 & 2 was Runaway Open Office Space Desctruction..aka progressive failure of the composite floor system that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns consisting of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab...aka pancaking ?
• Which WTC report accurately describes the primary post-initiation mechanism of desctruction ? Please provide a link. If you do not think there is such a report, simply say so.

Question #1 at this link:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/faqs12007.cfm

Which directs you to:

Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-6C.pdf

See how easy that was?

 

[femr2]

Once the initiation phase had completed there were already previous studies as to what happened.

Awesome. By whom ? Nostradamus ?

Please provide links. If you do and there is no mention of WTC 1 or 2, or no mention of composite floor system runaway destruction mechanisms within a skyscraper with a tube-in-tube design, I'll be a little dissapointed in Nostradamus/whomever...

On the other hand, if you DO find such a previous study, prior to 2001... hello mister insurance company...

 

[femr2]

Question #1 at this link:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/faqs12007.cfm

Which directs you to:

Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-6C.pdf

See how easy that was?

You are digging a hole (do I need to explain why?). And from your style getting a little desperate t'boot. No-one here is talking about energy availability. I have no issue with Bazant and co in terms of limiting case energetics. That's not what is being discussed. We're talking about what actually happened. Might be a good time to read the quote from NIST again. Might be a good idea to read what you've linked me to in your non-answer.

You have not answered my question...

Do you agree that the primary post-initiation mechanism of destruction for WTC 1 & 2 was Runaway Open Office Space Desctruction...aka progressive failure of the composite floor system...aka pancaking ?

Yes, or no ?


You think you have answered the second. Hmmm. Have you actually read the detail of this thread from the beginning ?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Awesome. By whom ? Nostradamus ?

Please provide links. If you do and there is no mention of WTC 1 or 2, or no mention of composite floor system runaway destruction mechanisms within a skyscraper with a tube-in-tube design, I'll be a little dissapointed in Nostradamus/whomever...

On the other hand, if you DO find such a previous study, prior to 2001... hello mister insurance company...

Ronan Point case studies and engineering reports, as I mentioned earlier, covers what happens once a collapse has started. If you want to see them then I suggest you get yourself to your local engineering schools library and start reading. I can't help you if you can't or won't understand how comparisons work.

Comparing Ronan point to the WTC is not like comparing apples and oranges, it's comparing apples to apples. What you seem to want is the equivalent of an in-depth study of a Washington Red apple being turned into applesauce when all that's really necessary is a general description of any apple getting turned into apple sauce. While there may be some minor differences the gross outcome is the same for both.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Do you agree that the primary post-initiation mechanism of destruction for WTC 1 & 2 was Runaway Open Office Space Desctruction...aka progressive failure of the composite floor system...aka pancaking ?

Yes, or no ?

I think that the primary cause of the progressive collapses was the failure of the connections between the floors and the columns as a direct result of massive dynamic overloading from the debris falling from above striking them. I think that the loss of those connections caused the columns to lose most of their vertical stability and that the mass of the falling floors pressed outwards until it overloaded the connections between the exterior column panels and "Ejected" some of them in a fairly spectacular manner. I think that many exterior columns simply toppled over instead of being "Ejected" in very large (or tall if you prefer) sections and those columns were the ones found furthest away. I also think that the core columns finally fell due to a combination of a lack of horizontal bracing and being buffeted at their bases.

That's what I think happened during the collapses in a nutshell. I haven't seen anything to make me think differently but I have seen plenty that supports my thoughts.

If you disagree with this overly simplistic description then explain with what and why you disagree. Provide examples.