OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[Grizzly Bear]

What I do have a problem with, as I think you have clocked, are statements such as...



...and...

What I took from him was that the progressive collapse mechanism has precedent examples with Ronan Point being one of them, and that the corner condition made Ronan Point susceptible to the kind of collapse it suffered, as the tube-tube design of the WTC made them more susceptible to the type of progressive failure they experienced. Any error in that statement would lie in defining the specific limiting criteria where the WTC and RP share similarities, which is what I think you queued onto.

I see where you're criticizing at, just saying what I read from it...

 

[ergo]

Usually what happens is the mainstream "truth movement" thinks the NIST's conclusions are based on the FEMA investigation's findings when they're two distinct and major differences.

No, it's actually the opposite. When I first came here last summer, JREF 9/11 bedunkers were citing FEMA and NIST as if they were synonymous. Why would NIST do an investigation if FEMA had already done one? They never seemed to ask themselves this question. We still see idiot bedunkers posting the PBS NOVA video "Why the Towers Fell" despite that it's been expressly debunked by both sides.

 

[Major_Tom]

Have you timed femr2's no-known-relationship-to-the-truth-movement?

As Major_Tom has "clearly explained", this thread is at least the second of who knows how many threads Major_Tom will dedicate to just the second part of his three-stage debate strategy.

I was ready for stage 3 in my first post.

The first 2 stages are because of you and your buddies like TFK. Very boring having to tutor you from Bazant to reality.

Very, very boring introducing you to real measurements from your normal diet of blind belief.

You post in pure hypocrisy. The last year has been only due to your own handicaps. You need months to understand the smallest things.

I am ready for stage 3 right now.. Always have been. But because you are living deep in a dream, I would be "debating" without you.

That 3 stage method applies only to JREF because of all the propaganda you push and believe.

It is getting through the stubbornness and illusion that is the hardest part. You are a very stubborn guy and quite subject to illusion.

I hate the mentality I have to observe when posting here. Hardly a pleasure for me.

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

I stall? The forum exists in a permanent state of stalling......not seeing......denying.......months and months of fake debates

And then the only intellectual detailed debate on WTC1 and 2 collapse initiation you will ever have in this forum is destroyed.........and you support it.

 

[Major_Tom]

Have you timed femr2's no-known-relationship-to-the-truth-movement?

As Major_Tom has "clearly explained", this thread is at least the second of who knows how many threads Major_Tom will dedicate to just the second part of his three-stage debate strategy. Until Major_Tom achieves that second objective, which is to "destroy the most common illusions that put a stranglehold on true, honest debate", he won't be able to "debate collapse features more clearly and specifically, maybe for the first time."

If Major_Tom were to rush headlong into that honest debate, he would get ahead of femr2 and lose their contest to see whose movement can move the slowest.

Stage 1: Introduce a collapse progpagation mechanism that matches all observables.

[This took me one freaking post, the one in the OP The year of posts which follow in this thread is due to the delusions of your buddies and those of yourself..

Stage 2: Destroy illusions: Hello! This stage is for you and your JREF friends, not me. I don't suffer an addiction to poor measurements. You do.


Which brings us to stage 3, where I have been patiently waiting for the last year. The information is already presented in feature lists in the 2 threads you have just helped destroy.

 

[DGM]

Major Tom's First Principle of WTC Study:

If you discuss the possibility of demolition of WTC1 or 2 without knowing anything about global mass flow within the buildings (ROOSD) or collapse mechanics,

Explain again why would we discuss "the possibility of demolition" of the WTC? Are the buildings still there or are you suggesting we discuss some unsupported fantasy (CD)?

You're jumping ahead (if it's the latter). First you need to show a reason to think anything other than fire/damage (you know, what was seen) occurred.

Shall we start there?

 

[tsig]

I was ready for stage 3 in my first post.

The first 2 stages are because of you and your buddies like TFK. Very boring having to tutor you from Bazant to reality.

Very, very boring introducing you to real measurements from your normal diet of blind belief.

You post in pure hypocrisy. The last year has been only due to your own handicaps. You need months to understand the smallest things.

I am ready for stage 3 right now.. Always have been. But because you are living deep in a dream, I would be "debating" without you.

That 3 stage method applies only to JREF because of all the propaganda you push and believe.

It is getting through the stubbornness and illusion that is the hardest part. You are a very stubborn guy and quite subject to illusion.

I hate the mentality I have to observe when posting here. Hardly a pleasure for me.

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

I stall? The forum exists in a permanent state of stalling......not seeing......denying.......months and months of fake debates

And then the only intellectual detailed debate on WTC1 and 2 collapse initiation you will ever have in this forum is destroyed.........and you support it.

You really shouldn't let the JREF restrain you.

 

[Reactor drone]

A review of the FEMA study:



From FEMA 403 Ch 2, pg 2-27

FEMA on WTC1, 2002:

2.2.1.5 Progression of Collapse

Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building.

Who discovered the first early movement in the antenna?

It was either before 2002 or FEMA, according to the FEMA Building Study.


It is interesting to note that FEMA believed the WTC1 core failed and noted early antenna movement as evidence.

The NIST disagreed and never mentioned the NIST observation of early WTC! antenna movement in their report.

When we pointed out the exact same early antenna movement in 2010 on this forum, we were treated to months of insults and abuse.

This is because most people now think the apparent downward motion of the antenna from certain angles is just a perspective effect as the top of the building starts to rotate. Your own data shows this. The 2 foot apparent shortening of the antenna in relation to the roofline is exactly what you expect to see from the northern camera position as the top of the building begins to rotate to the south.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

You post in pure hypocrisy. The last year has been only due to your own handicaps. You need months to understand the smallest things.

In other words: You've been taking months to explain the smallest things.

My natural stupidity may have contributed to your slow pace of exposition, but your general approach and specific mistakes bear some responsibility as well.

On several occasions, you have made mathematical errors that I spotted on first reading but you denied for a week or more.

You also denied your comical misapplication of modus tollens for at least 11 days. So far as I know, you're denying it still.

If you ask nicely, other members of this forum will be happy to supply you with other examples of errors that took you weeks or months to correct, or errors you still haven't corrected.

It's Saturday, 21 May 2011. At your present rate of progress, the world may end before you destroy all illusions at JREF or get around to correcting your own mistakes.

Life is short. If you have anything intelligent to say, don't let stupid people stop you from saying it.

 

[Major_Tom]

Life is short. If you have anything intelligent to say, don't let stupid people stop you from saying it.

It has been said.

Links have been set up and the intelligent know how to push a button and read.

The stupid won't bother.

However, there are those who seem to generate spin like it is a full-time job.

Richard Gage, R Mackey, Heiwa and David Chandler come to mind but NISTians play a central role in propagating stupidity as if it is a sacred mission.

The NISTians would be those who call this place home.

A full-time propaganda machine designed to keep people stupid.

A little honesty and the whole balloon will burst. This is why I must be censored.

 

[Major_Tom]

Major Tom's First Principle of WTC Study:

If you discuss the possibility of demolition of WTC1 or 2 without knowing anything about global mass flow within the buildings (ROOSD) or collapse mechanics, you are running on one of these:

A demonstration of the principle: David Chandler

Chandler educational video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgN080yySe0&feature=player_embedded

David Chandler is a walking, breathing example of the first principle.

Due to his extreme ignorance of global mass flow as mapped in the WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics, he imagines that every ejection must have been caused by a little bomb. From the video:

Can't you see them all? Thousands of little bombs put on every floor. David Chandler discovers uneven ROOSD in 2011 and calls it "proof of thousands of little bombs".

The irony is that many debunkers use the same type of reasoning, the reasoning of "blocks". Chandler, Heiwa and Bazant all think in terms of "blocks". I will therefore call them "upper-blockers", or block-heads in the interest of brevity.

Thousands of individual ejections along the ROOSD collapse front is seen as "evidence" of thousands of little bombs placed on ever floor of the building.

This mentality is identical to that of Richard Gage. The belief is that all dust must have been caused by a bomb and so much dust is "proof" the building was "blown to bits", or "blown to Kingdom come".

It doesn't take a genius to understand that ordinary demolitions do not require an all out floor-by-floor assault on the poor building.



This is a particular model of thought which is very popular within the propaganda of AE911T. The lower portion of the building is imagined as a big "block" that has to be blown to "smithereens" in order for the "upper block" to descend.


This is the general mentality expressed as a 1-D physics problem, a basic blockhead approach to collapse progression.....

The model of WTC1 and 2 is imagined as such:

And the AE911T concept of "demolition" for WTC1 is that the "upper block" is represented by the top block with a "B", the lower "block" being the blocks "A", "B" and "Y".

To Chandler and Gage, you need explosive power equivalent to a squadron of tanks to destroy the "A" block" (whereas to the esteemed Dr Wood only space beams will do).


It is through the "pulverization" of the "A" block that demo must be achieved, anything less than a total assault upon block "A" is "proof" of a violation of Newton's Laws.

And this is not the most extreme view presented. Others have sugessted something a little more powerful may have been required to deal with block "A":

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

I can show you example after example of how both truthers and debunkers have been faking debates through their ignorance of the true WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics

 

[NoahFence]

The true collapse mechanisms of the WTC twin towers have never been identified outside of internet forums.

Then why don't you do it?

 

[NoahFence]

Listen - (FEMR & MT)

Why is it so important to refute the NIST report, when you two clearly come to the same conclusion as them?

(Conclusion meaning end result....)

 

[ergo]

A demonstration of the principle: David Chandler

Chandler educational video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgN080yySe0&feature=player_embedded

David Chandler is a walking, breathing example of the first principle.

Due to his extreme ignorance of global mass flow as mapped in the WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics, he imagines that every ejection must have been caused by a little bomb. From the video:

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/chandler1.jpg[/qimg]

Can't you see them all? Thousands of little bombs put on every floor. David Chandler discovers uneven ROOSD in 2011 and calls it "proof of thousands of little bombs".

The irony is that many debunkers use the same type of reasoning, the reasoning of "blocks". Chandler, Heiwa and Bazant all think in terms of "blocks". I will therefore call them "upper-blockers", or block-heads in the interest of brevity.

Thousands of individual ejections along the ROOSD collapse front is seen as "evidence" of thousands of little bombs placed on ever floor of the building.

This mentality is identical to that of Richard Gage. The belief is that all dust must have been caused by a bomb and so much dust is "proof" the building was "blown to bits", or "blown to Kingdom come".

It doesn't take a genius to understand that ordinary demolitions do not require an all out floor-by-floor assault on the poor building.

And yet, most nevertheless employ this method. I wonder why.

Can you show us demolitions of steel-framed highrises that only take out a few floors and let gravity do the rest?

This is a particular model of thought which is very popular within the propaganda of AE911T. The lower portion of the building is imagined as a big "block" that has to be blown to "smithereens" in order for the "upper block" to descend.

This is the general mentality expressed as a 1-D physics problem, a basic blockhead approach to collapse progression.....

The model of WTC1 and 2 is imagined as such:

[qimg]http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTNRQz817TMSbdeUEO2e4BAQt74JUu_gv6iIG_jo2_B7pQeaKYz[/qimg]

And the AE911T concept of "demolition" for WTC1 is that the "upper block" is represented by the top block with a "B", the lower "block" being the blocks "A", "B" and "Y".

To Chandler and Gage, you need explosive power equivalent to a squadron of tanks to destroy the "A" block" (whereas to the esteemed Dr Wood only space beams will do).

It is through the "pulverization" of the "A" block that demo must be achieved, anything less than a total assault upon block "A" is "proof" of a violation of Newton's Laws.

I'm glad you've finally come out and stated what your objections with Gage, AETruth and others have been. For the building to descend at the rate of 2/3 g does require resistance to have been removed. Even a floor overloading model would require some time to destroy such a building, and would probably not complete the task, as energy is lost at each step. Moreover, your own model does not explain how the building contents, including 7-ton floor pans, would be pulverized beyond recognition in a progressive collapse. Where are the floor pans? Nor does it explain why the core structure has disappeared even in the first few seconds of collapse.

You claim to have the definitive model but you have yet to convince anyone on either side. There are many competent scientists and engineers who ally themselves with AETruth who would honestly and objectively review your work. Supposedly the 911 forum is such a venue. At the risk of sounding like a bedunker, why don't you submit it?

 

[Major_Tom]

Ergo, consider...




The David Chandler Third Law argument as an extreme example of the blockhead influence in the WTC collapse progression circus.

The paper: Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics

To me the argument makes no sense whatsoever towards the WTC towers but consider the exact same argument applied to these baby blocks:

Now, not only does the Chandler argument make sense, but I agree with him. Not just me, but anyone must agree. Consider.....

If the baby block arrangement was on a table before you and the upper "B" block suddenly began to fall through the "a" block, any one of us would be shocked.

Could you imagine the upper "B" block falling to earth directly through the "A".....and then through the lower "B" block.....and finally crashing through the bottom "Y" block to earth?


I would be truly stunned. So would my cat.

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

But would such a reaction make my cat a truther? (Is the Chandler argument valid?)

Let us consider the most basic problems with a blockhead appoach to collapse mechanics using Ozeco's graphic....

Notice the difference between the contact surfaces between upper and lower portions. The bottom of baby block "B" is made of wood and it has continuous contact with the upper portion of baby block "A"

In the case of real WTC towers, the base of some columns rest on the top surfaces of other columns. Columns supporting the upper portion of the building are very much like the stilts supporting the men below:

While any one of us would question our own mental well-being if we saw the "A" block self-destruct on the table before us and the upper "B" block start to descend, none of us would be too surprised to see one of those guys fall right on his ass if one of his stilts breaks. ANd consider, will the falling man fall onto the lower portion of the broken stilt and be newly supported? Let's hope the poor man misses the lower stilt entirely on his way to earth.

While Chandler's arguments may seem silly to most posters here, consider the JREF longtime support for the most famous debunker blockhead of all: Dr Bazant, your crush-down, then crush-up Guru.

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


Ergo, I have nothing against anyone sincerely seeking the truth, right or wrong. But the debate is where it is today, according to my first principle, because of careless thinking.

JREF is what it is because of the same careless thinking. People have to see their own mistakes with humility and a sense of humor if we are to go beyond running on this:

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Listen - (FEMR & MT)

Why is it so important to refute the NIST report, when you two clearly come to the same conclusion as them?

(Conclusion meaning end result....)

Applied correctly I don't think femr2's critiques are necessarily bad. It's entirely possible for his crits to take on the role of pointing out errors which may not significantly affect the overall conclusion that the towers collapsed due to fire and impact damage, but may have implications on issues that came around as a result of incomplete findings. I don't get that feeling out of MT's "work." True I think the way they're applying it now seems redundant IMO, but femr does it better. MT may have issues with his crits of the NIST, et al, but he does have a much better grasp with his crits of the AE911truth stuff... Dunno why it's so different with the other.

 

[ergo]

Chandler was addressing Bazant's block model.

The rest of your post does not address my questions.

 

[leftysergeant]

Even a floor overloading model would require some time to destroy such a building, and would probably not complete the task, as energy is lost at each step.

No. Each floor weighs X. Assume that 5X will overload it to the point of breaking. Load it with 5X. When it breaks, the next floor becomes loaded with 6X. Where is your energy loss? Did you miss the idea of conservation of NUMBER before you took your first physics class?

Moreover, your own model does not explain how the building contents, including 7-ton floor pans, would be pulverized beyond recognition in a progressive collapse. Where are the floor pans?

The faling floors banged into floors that didn't get out of the way fast enoguh. That shattered the slabs. The pans are there in the rubble pile, twisted out of shape and mixed with other stuff so that they are hard to distinguish unless you have some idea what the pile should look like.

Nor does it explain why the core structure has disappeared even in the first few seconds of collapse.

Ermmm...it didn't.

 

[ergo]

Lefty, take your Bazant-ian pablum elsewhere, please.

 

[NoahFence]

If the baby block arrangement was on a table before you and the upper "B" block suddenly began to fall through the "a" block, any one of us would be shocked.

I hate to be the master of the obvious here, but those blocks are solid. The trade centers weren't. Bad example.

 

[NoahFence]

Lefty, take your Bazant-ian pablum elsewhere, please.

Have you given up the dust cloud being "pyroclastic" yet?