OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[Major_Tom]

Hello,

I am requesting feedback on a paper about a model of the collapse progression of WTC1. The first draft is complete and is available for viewing.

Rather than placing it in a PDF format, I wrote it within a different forum over 11 posts, linked here:

http://www.the911forum.freeforums.org/oos-collapse-model-t361.html#p10283

Please read the whole paper before commenting.

I am posting the paper for review over multiple forums in a type of "public review process" before writing a final draft. I understand this forum can be rather hostile to people who do not share the popular views expressed, but there are clearly some people who can provide useful reviews.

I have noticed that some posters seem confused by the ejections of perimeter columns and column buckling in general and maybe this paper can help explain a natural mechanism for the wide perimeter layout in the rubble, among other issues.

So perhaps you can benefit from providing constructive feedback just as I can benefit by receiving it.

I'll basically be gathering and responding to the decent feedback while ignoring the insults. Thanks.

 

[beachnut]

As usual it ends in woo

cores which a demolition team can exploit by setting up sufficient initial conditions higher in the towers.

lol

You wasted all that "work" to make up idiotic conclusions. 8 years and you can't get past CD. ... your paper supports a gravity collapse. Does this mean you have left 911 truth and will join reality?

The paper exposes a lack of knowledge of models, the purpose and limitations of models.

 

[Newtons Bit]

This failure mode has been discussed for a very large period of time and it just a rehash of what everyone who wasn't delusional already knew. Bazant and Zhou talk about the column failure mode as the limit state as, "nlikely though such a distribution may be, it is nevertheless the most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest."

Bazant and Verdue states that, "The kinetic energy of the top part of the tower impacting the floor below was found to be about 8.4 larger than the elastic energy absorption capability of the underlying story," and the the purpose of the Bazant and Verdue paper is not to describe the WTC collapse, but rather to create "a theory describing the progressive collapse dynamics" as this would be "very useful for other purposes, especially for
learning from demolitions".

Why come up with this new term "open office space flooring"? It's not real. You're literally the only person to use that particular phrase. You're not going to win any bonus points by coming up with new jargon. It's just going to make you look like you don't know what you're talking about. Which leads us back to the purpose of this post: you don't know what you're talking about. You're not even capable of reading for understanding what you're supposedly debunking.

Let me spell it out for you one more time. When a column develops plastic hinges and buckles it absorbs a very large amount of energy. It absorbs orders of magnitudes more than a simple shear connection failing, or a truss web, or a connection from the perimeter column to the diaphragm. If there is not enough available energy absorption in the columns then there is no possible way that the building could resist the collapse. Bazant and Zhou shows this very clearly. If you want to argue otherwise, fine. But first you must show which elements have the necessary capacity to resist the collapse.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Hello,

I am requesting feedback on a paper about a model of the collapse progression of WTC1. The first draft is complete and is available for viewing.

Rather than placing it in a PDF format, I wrote it within a different forum over 11 posts, linked here:

http://www.the911forum.freeforums.org/oos-collapse-model-t361.html#p10283

Please read the whole paper before commenting.

I am posting the paper for review over multiple forums in a type of "public review process" before writing a final draft. I understand this forum can be rather hostile to people who do not share the popular views expressed, but there are clearly some people who can provide useful reviews.

I have noticed that some posters seem confused by the ejections of perimeter columns and column buckling in general and maybe this paper can help explain a natural mechanism for the wide perimeter layout in the rubble, among other issues.

So perhaps you can benefit from providing constructive feedback just as I can benefit by receiving it.

I'll basically be gathering and responding to the decent feedback while ignoring the insults. Thanks.

I fail to see why you mention demolition in your conclusions when there seem to be no requirement for it in your collapse theory nor evidence for it

 

[Newtons Bit]

I fail to see why you mention demolition in your conclusions when there seem to be no requirement for it in your collapse theory nor evidence for it

Indeed. If any thing, his "paper" only provides evidence as to why the collapse was quicker than expected in the axial column-to-column scenario.

 

[Major_Tom]

I do not conclude demolition in describing the collapse progression mechanism. I only conclude that the mechanism of downward collapse progression must have been the destruction of what I call OOS flooring, stripping the perimeter from the core.

It is the only conclusion possible given the 4 physical observations in the paper.

I am sorry if this has already been said. If so, could you refer me to the paper or presentation that stated so?

If not, it is new information. Appendix A contains new information I've never seen presented elsewhere. If it has been presented before, could you please show me where?

Appendix B, on the observation of perimeter "peeling", as far as I am aware, has new information. If it is not considered new, it is because I introduced it previously.

It is interesting that as I present the same paper on many a truther forum, it will probably be rejected because I present a natural propagation mechanism.

Why come up with this new term "open office space flooring"?

No need. I am distinguishing between two types of flooring. I need to call it something. Do you have a better phrase?

Anyone can read the comments in this forum for the last couple of days and see that many of you have no mechanism by which perimeter columns can be displaced so far from the footprint. I've read interesting interpretations of it based on "over-pressure" in this forum just today. I provide a natural mechanism for that.

NB, do you have a better mechanism for the wide distribution of perimeter columns? Can you point to the posts in this forum which provide a better mechanism?

 

[Major_Tom]

NB's interpretation of BV is quite interesting, since I've exchanged hundreds of posts with David Benson on another forum where he uses it to match drop data for WTC1. He claims to communicate with Dr Bazant and he is co-author with Dr Bazant and Dr Greening on the follow-up paper for BV.

He seems to see things differently than you.

 

[R.Mackey]

It may "seem" that way, but it isn't.

Oddly, Dr. Benson doesn't see anything suspicious about the collapses.

If you're going to just appeal to his authority blindly, then you probably should agree with his conclusion... yet you don't. Curious.

 

[alienentity]

Hello,

I am requesting feedback on a paper about a model of the collapse progression of WTC1. The first draft is complete and is available for viewing.

Haven't read the paper, but are you planning to get it published in an engineering journal?

 

[Newtons Bit]

NB's interpretation of BV is quite interesting, since I've exchanged hundreds of posts with David Benson on another forum where he uses it to match drop data for WTC1. He claims to communicate with Dr Bazant and he is co-author with Dr Bazant and Dr Greening on the follow-up paper for BV.

He seems to see things differently than you.

Interpretation? Try reading the introduction. FFS I QUOTED the damn paper.

 

[Major_Tom]

The title of BV: Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World
Trade Center and Building Demolitions

By: Zdenfk P. Bažant, F.ASCE1; and Mathieu Verdure2


First two sentences in the paper:

Abstract: Progressive collapse is a failure mode of great concern for tall buildings, and is also typical of building demolitions. The most
infamous paradigm is the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. After reviewing the mechanics of their collapse, the motion during
the crushing of one floor
or group of floors and its energetics are analyzed, and a dynamic one-dimensional continuum model of
progressive collapse is developed.


But NB says:

the purpose of the Bazant and Verdue paper is not to describe the WTC collapse, but rather to create "a theory describing the progressive collapse dynamics"

If the reader is still in doubt, please use the link to BV that NB provides and read the introduction yourselves.

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

R Mackey comments: If you're going to just appeal to his authority blindly, then you probably should agree with his conclusion... yet you don't. Curious.

Those who watched the exchange between David Benson and myself would find this claim to be funny.
...................................

Guys, I didn't come to sling mud and I won't respond in kind. Let's start with a quote from the paper:

ROOSD is the only known propagation mechanism which agrees with all observables.

Is this a true statement or a false statement? Why do you think so?

 

[Dave Rogers]

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. It's of no value whatsoever to any discussion of whether 9/11 was an inside job, but it's an interesting view on a particular aspect of the WTC collapses. As such, it doesn't really belong in this sub-forum, because (by your own admission) it's irrelevant to a discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Dave

 

[Newtons Bit]

The title of BV: Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World
Trade Center and Building Demolitions

By: Zdenfk P. Bažant, F.ASCE1; and Mathieu Verdure2


First two sentences in the paper:

Abstract: Progressive collapse is a failure mode of great concern for tall buildings, and is also typical of building demolitions. The most
infamous paradigm is the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. After reviewing the mechanics of their collapse, the motion during
the crushing of one floor
or group of floors and its energetics are analyzed, and a dynamic one-dimensional continuum model of
progressive collapse is developed.


But NB says:

the purpose of the Bazant and Verdue paper is not to describe the WTC collapse, but rather to create "a theory describing the progressive collapse dynamics"

If the reader is still in doubt, please use the link to BV that NB provides and read the introduction yourselves.

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

R Mackey comments: If you're going to just appeal to his authority blindly, then you probably should agree with his conclusion... yet you don't. Curious.

Those who watched the exchange between David Benson and myself would find this claim to be funny.
...................................

Guys, I didn't come to sling mud and I won't respond in kind. Let's start with a quote from the paper:

ROOSD is the only known propagation mechanism which agrees with all observables.

Is this a true statement or a false statement? Why do you think so?

Yes, and the abstract and the paper agree with what I said. Your confusion is probably due to not knowing what the definition of paradigm is.

One that serves as a pattern or model.

A set or list of all the inflectional forms of a word or of one of its grammatical categories: the paradigm of an irregular verb.

A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.

Bazant and Verdue sets out to model and understand progressive collapse. Not prove how the WTC collapsed. It uses the WTC only as a paradigm. I.e. an example, a model, a pattern, etc etc. It then applies the conclusions of this model to other buildings, as that is the stated purpose of this model.

 

[Major_Tom]

It then applies the conclusions of this model to other buildings

Where do they do that? Can you show me?
..................

Thanks, Dave. The paper seems pretty simple, really. It does belong here because once the model is accepted, we can examine conclusions in view of CD. Please give me some time to show that. I need to get through the initial resistance first.

Many posts here are about actual mechanisms of perimeter columns being ejected and other actual mechanisms involved in initiation and progression. This paper certainly contributes to that discussion.

I agree with you that the true questions are in initiation and a couple of features of progression I'll introduce later, the topic of my second paper not yet released. If this first paper is not understood, we won't know where to focus attention to approach the CD question.

As you can see, the mechanisms introduced in the paper can be of use to many of the posters here who argue against the claims of AE911T and if you accept the posts of debunkers who argue against CD in this forum, why not accept this thread here, too?

The part of the conclusion you may object to is important, maybe for the truthers reading it more than for yourselves. I am trying to reach multiple audiences and I'd like to make it very clear that I am not debunking CD, but rather suggesting a new approach.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Where do they do that? Can you show me?

Try reading these sections:
"What Can We Learn?—Proposal for Monitoring Demolitions"
"Usefulness of Varying Demolition Mode"
"Complex Three-Dimensional Situations"
"Massive Structures"
"Implications and Conclusions"

Please stop wasting my time with your willful ignorance. Before you post again, read the paper. All of it.

As you can see, the mechanisms introduced in the paper can be of use to many of the posters here who argue against the claims of AE911T and if you accept the posts of debunkers who argue against CD in this forum, why not accept this thread here, too?

You did not introduce this mechanism. It's been discussed here for years.

 

[femr2]

You did not introduce this mechanism. It's been discussed here for years.

I take it you have no objection to the actual described process then ? Have to say I've not seen discussion of regional OOS floor destruction anywhere else. Perhaps you could point to it. Primitive *pancake*, sure. But there are some subtle differences, and a key point is that it's matched to observables. Not sure why you'd have a problem with that to be honest.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I take it you have no objection to the actual described process then ? Have to say I've not seen discussion of regional OOS floor destruction anywhere else. Perhaps you could point to it. Primitive *pancake*, sure. But there are some subtle differences, and a key point is that it's matched to observables. Not sure why you'd have a problem with that to be honest.

I don't have any problems with a model that rejects axial column-to-column impacts. Most of us have been arguing the exact same thing with people like Tony Szamboti and Heiwa. The former believes in axial column-to-column impacts. The latter may have, but he constantly changes his argument/papers and updates them, then denies they ever changed.

I do have a problem with Major_Tom's arguments regarding Bazant, as they are incorrect and based on reading truther websites of the paper rather than the paper itself. I have a problem with his phrase "OOS flooring" because he just invented it. "Long-Span Trusses" is common. Or hell, he could just say "floor". 60' spans aren't that uncommon.

 

[femr2]

I don't have any problems with a model that rejects axial column-to-column impacts.

The study doesn't address the core at all really. It addresses behaviour implied by observables, namely the north/south split *crush fronts* and perimeter ejection/peeling behaviours.

Most of us have been arguing the exact same thing

Most of those discussions are about non-axial impact of the core columns, or core columns missing each other and impact between core cross bracing. Not quite sure why you think a study of the behaviour of the flooring outside of the core exclusively is the exact same thing.

I do have a problem with Major_Tom's arguments regarding Bazant, as they are incorrect and based on reading truther websites of the paper rather than the paper itself.

How are you able to suggest such ? Am pretty sure MT has read the papers many-a time. Could you specify specific incorrect statements please ?

I have a problem with his phrase "OOS flooring" because he just invented it. "Long-Span Trusses" is common. Or hell, he could just say "floor". 60' spans aren't that uncommon.

You say tomato. I think the purpose is to make clear distinction between the flooring within the core area, and the flooring outside of the core area. Open Office Space is absolutely fine by me. Floor is not specific. Long-Span Trusses doesn't paint a clear picture of the entire structure includikng concrete slab for me. It makes one look at the outside core flooring area as a grid of trusses only, and also doesn't make distinction between the shorter span trusses, etc. I'm fine with OOS, as long as what it refers to is clearly described.

 

[Major_Tom]

Anyone have a different name for the flooring that encircles the core? Suggestions?

I call it "open office space"...OOS. Long span trusses are only on the wider sides.
...........................

Regarding originality of the study. The study is based on 4 physical observations. Everything else follows from that. THere is no evidence anyone was aware of perimeter action until I pointed it out in this forum and others. The whole width of the core was discovered by femr and another poster, actually. I was the first that I am aware of to point to different levels of the collapse front and different propagation rates moving down the NW and SW corners, while femr developed the idea further.

Please provide proof of this being discussed before I mentioned it.

The large, large majority of straight core and unbuckled perimeter columns was first introduced by me a few years back in this forum and the STJ911 forum. I'm sure the original conversations on this forum can be found and the resistance I encountered to pointing out this obvious fact is documented in your own forum.

Now you folks claim credit for discovering it?

This study could not have been written without the discovery of the entire width of the core, and I was right there when it was discovered a few months ago. All documented.

ROOSD is the only logical explanation and you are being introduced to it now. This knowledge did not exist before, nor could it without the 4 physical observations. Every one of the observations were made by "twoofers". None whatsoever by Bazant.

The last I checked, he was still insisting that crush down must be complete before crush up begins. NB, please provide evidence for your claims.

 

[funk de fino]

The large, large majority of straight core and unbuckled perimeter columns was first introduced by me a few years back in this forum and the STJ911 forum. I'm sure the original conversations on this forum can be found and the resistance I encountered to pointing out this obvious fact is documented in your own forum.

Now you folks claim credit for discovering it?

Are you wilfully making crap up? Most people at the time said there lots of straight columns because columns broke at the connections.