OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[Major_Tom]

A message for members and supporters of AE911T and STJ911: This study is not an attack on you. I do not disagree with your stated mission, only in your choice of evidence. I hope the study makes clear that there are serious issues with how certain information is presented.

I invite constructive, intra-forum dialog free from any kind of abuse. I understand why some of you are hesitant to post your views here, given the environment of unchecked abuse is clearly not conductive to a fair debate.

I hope some of you present this study on your own forum for discussion. Any feedback from members of your organization is appreciated. Perhaps we can exchange views on a different forum. If we use the one I normally post on, I will personally guarantee that no insults from any side will be tolerated and the discussion will proceed through argument, not feelings.

We really need to talk and I hope some of you take me up on the offer.

 

[carlitos]

In layman's terms, is the floor thing comparable to the back of a bookcase, where a thin piece of fiberboard is tacked on with 10 or 12 nails, and this piece actually maintains the structural integrity of what becomes a rather heavy piece of furniture? Remove the back piece, and it goes all wobbly.

 

[Major_Tom]

We've been talking about the claim of axial-column impacts. Not the crush-up / crush-down hypothesis

It's in BV and BL. You were talking about axial-column impacts. I was taking about BV and BL, and the topic of the thread: The study

 

[BasqueArch]

Mcccdh

Major Tom
The collapse of the Towers is divided in two phases:
First Phase. The non-CD initial failure of one floor as explained by NIST and over a dozen other experienced non-CT structural engineers in their papers.
Second Phase. The non-CD progressive global collapse as explained by Bazant. NIST, and where mentioned by the engineers above, have reviewed and agree with Bazant’s second phase hypothetical collapse explanation.

In the main body of his first 2001 paper, Bazant assumes the most optimistic hypothesis, not the actual failure mode of the Towers because the actual collapse details are almost impossible to analyze precisely. So :

“For our purpose, we may assume that all the impact forces go
into the columns and are distributed among them equally. Unlikely
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. If the
building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact
forces, it would fail under any other distribution.”

[qimg]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_aJeegFsC3nY/R3L_2XdW1SI/AAAAAAAAAbY/uR21-Fs5wXE/s400/Picture+3.png[/qimg]
Figure 1
Hypothetical collapse mode (my words)

Later in the same paper he answers a question about the actual collapse mode. You can see the top portion is tilted. This differs from the axial, uniform hypothetical collapse mode of Figure 1 above.

“Appendix II. Why Didn’t the Upper Part Pivot About Its Base?

Since the top part of the South Tower tilted [Fig. 3a], many
people wonder: Why didn’t the upper part of the tower fall to the
side like a tree, pivoting about the center of the critical floor?
[Fig. 3b]. To demonstrate why, and thus to justify our previous
neglect of tilting, is an elementary exercise in dynamics.
Assume the center of the floor at the base of the upper part …

…. From this we further conclude
that the reaction at the base of the upper part of South
Tower must have begun shearing the columns plastically already
at the inclination of approximately 2.8 degrees.
The pivoting of the upper part must have started by an asymmetric
failure of the columns on one side of building, but already at
this very small angle the dynamic horizontal reaction at the base
of the upper part must have reduced the vertical load capacity of
the remaining columns of the critical floor …..”

It’s this pivoting horizontal reaction thrust that contributes to the displacement of all columns in both towers and is missed by CTs.
[qimg]http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/imgs/figure4.gif[/qimg]
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

I can see your setup a mile away. You will claim the initial phase was CD’d at the core and that phase two was gravity driven. I will call this opinion MCCCDH – (Minimalist Core Columns Controlled Demolition Hypothesis.)

You allege numerous times in your paper that Bazant claims that the perimeter and core columns globally failed by actually being crushed. This allegation is wrong as explained above.

Truther critics of Bazant have not read his papers, or if they have they don’t understand them, or if they understand them they are misrepresenting him.

.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Yet you mention demolition in your conclusions...........why? What in your collapse mechanism requires a demolition?

Bump. Why do you mention demolition in your "paper" Initiation is not covered in your paper so why mention it at all in the conclusion?

 

[beachnut]

A message for members and supporters of AE911T and STJ911: ... I do not disagree with your stated mission, only in your choice of evidence. I hope the study makes clear that there are serious issues with how certain information is presented.

I invite constructive, intra-forum dialog free from any kind of abuse. I understand why some of you are hesitant to post your views here, given the environment of unchecked abuse is clearly not conductive to a fair debate.

I hope some of you present this study on your own forum for discussion. Any feedback from members of your organization is appreciated. Perhaps we can exchange views on a different forum. If we use the one I normally post on, I will personally guarantee that no insults from any side will be tolerated and the discussion will proceed through argument, not feelings.

We really need to talk and I hope some of you take me up on the offer.

Gage spreads lies about an event so he can make a living. Gage makes money by spreading false information. You want his cult members to discuss papers which tend to end or imply how easy it is to have thermite do it or a CD happen. Total nonsense, using insane claims to bilk idiots.

Jones is insane, he made up thermite out of the blue. Your paper is silly. It is like saying 1+1 is 2, 3+3 is 6, and in conclusion given 2 and 6 we have CD. And now you want Jones cult member to discuss your paper so you can back in CD and make 911 an inside job. Pure insanity adopted by dolts who are gullible. I miss his cinder block drop experiment as he fell into insanity. Maybe you can join him and write a paper on how the USA caused the earthquake in Haiti. Kind of like making an on-line Journal so he can post his nonsensical ideas on 911.

And we have your paper which you try to hide behind the contents but spew woo in the conclusion.

Your paper is junk...

By choosing perimeter seams carefully, all OOS contents and the entire perimeter can be intentionally dropped and steered to earth as desired in a remarkably controlled, orderly fashion.

Complete nonsense. You make up junk out of thin air like Jones. What kind of engineer are you?


What is your goal? Is your goal to support the insanity of Jones, or the fraud of Gage? You want the cult member of these two fringe nut case conspiracy theorists to discuss more nonsense about 911?

You are asking for feedback so you can make your paper better? If your paper gets better it will debunk your delusion.

 

[Newtons Bit]

It's in BV and BL. You were talking about axial-column impacts. I was taking about BV and BL, and the topic of the thread: The study

If you want people to keep interacting with you, stop moving goal posts over and over again. This is what you wrote.

Dr Bazant, to whose expertise the NIST refers concerning WTC1 collapse propagation, seems equally oblivious to the actual condition of these columns since no mention of this fact appears in any of his papers on the subject (Bazant and Zhao, Bazant and Verdure or Bazant and Le). Dr Bazant formulates equations to describe the rate of collapse propagation based on continuous column buckling and rebuckling in Bazant and Verdure, even though there is a clear absence of buckled columns within the rubble.

For this they only refer to the work of Dr Bazant, who describes such propagation in terms of column buckling and successive rebuckling in Bazant and Verdure.

The value of formulating an accurate descriptive model before a mathematical one can be appreciated simply by looking at some fundamental mistakes made in Bazant's formulation of collapse propagation in BV and BL, including but not limited to:

1) An insistence that an "upper block" survived intact during the downward collapse propagation despite ample visual evidence to the contrary.

2) The believe that successive rebuckling of columns controlled the rate of descent of WTC1 despite the almost complete lack of buckled column sections within the rubble.

2) How does column yield strength enter into this collision? With finite floor connections it doesn't. There is no connection whatsoever, demonstrating one way that the OOS destruction model differs with the Bazant and Verdure approach.

Since BV was written some significant features of the collapse were observed and verified, showing that many of the concepts used in the paper like an indestructible upper block and a "crush down" happening before a "crush up" to be be incorrect. BV describes the downward continued collapse propagation of the building to be the result of columns buckling and rebuckling. The collapse propagation rate is taken as the rate of column rebuckling.

Current descriptive and mathematical approaches to explain the collapse progression for WTC1 cannot account for the temporary survival of the entire northern portion of the core. The general description of WTC1 collapse propagation offered by Dr Bazant and accepted by the NIST cannot account for any of the 4 physical observations presented in this paper. Within the body of literature offered by Dr Bazant and accepted by the NIST on the subject of WTC1 collapse progression there is no hint that Dr Bazant is even aware of the absence of column buckling, the temporarily survival of the whole northern core or the outward motion of the perimeter. some vocal and public critics of the NIST and Dr Bazant like AE911T and STJ911 seem equally oblivious to any of the 4 physical collapse features listed in this paper.

You are a lying liar. We challenged you on your fraudulent claim on the buckled columns concept. YOU brought up the upper block / lower block. This is a non-sequitur. It would make an equal amount of sense for you to bring up Bazant's middle name as an argument. Unfortunately, the way you do it you just come across as a dishonest charlatan. Which, by the way, you are.

 

[T.A.M.]

A message for members and supporters of AE911T and STJ911: This study is not an attack on you. I do not disagree with your stated mission, only in your choice of evidence. I hope the study makes clear that there are serious issues with how certain information is presented.

I invite constructive, intra-forum dialog free from any kind of abuse. I understand why some of you are hesitant to post your views here, given the environment of unchecked abuse is clearly not conductive to a fair debate.

I hope some of you present this study on your own forum for discussion. Any feedback from members of your organization is appreciated. Perhaps we can exchange views on a different forum. If we use the one I normally post on, I will personally guarantee that no insults from any side will be tolerated and the discussion will proceed through argument, not feelings.

We really need to talk and I hope some of you take me up on the offer.

You know what, I have bolded and italicized a part of your quote, because I want to speak to it. My comments are not to you, but to the coddling you feel the members of those organizations deserve...

-------

I am sick and tired of truthers, and other pseudoscience defenders whining about the "unchecked abuse" on this forum and how it isn't conducive to fair debate.

1. Abuse is WELL CHECKED on this forum...and they try to be fair and impartial about who they "check". I have seen many a debunker get suspended and banned for such behavior.

2. I think most of the truther and CTists are a bunch of *********** whiny whimps. You are throwing around allegations that fellow countrymen (if you are american at least) allowed 3000 of their own to die, or in fact, orchestrated their deaths. Yet you expect skeptics of this pov to be nice and treat you with kid gloves as you throw this evidenceless speculation around. Well you know what...**** that.

3. Insults? Oh my...get a thick skin. If you can't take the heat pussy, then get out of the kitchen. With the allegations being suggested, you should hope for ONLY insults, and nothing more.

TAM

 

[Major_Tom]

My mistake. TAM. You've done an excellent job at promoting a fair, open debate. The insults are well-checked, as demonstrated in this thread.

TAM. your feelings about the millions of people who cannot believe the official version of events are well known. Can you imagine what some of them must think of you?

Yet, were we to allow open debate, would it be conductive to allow them to openly voice their own juicy opinions of you personally in their arguments?
..............................

Sheeples, because the conclusions of the study neither confirm no deny the possibility of CD. I wanted to explicitly state this, hence the last paragraph.

There is no doubt the paper describes natural processes in peeling and ROOSD, but one cannot conclude no CD occurred. Basically, I am telling those who suspect CD that there is no need to lace a building with explosives "from head to toe". Estimates of the amount of explosives required have been greatly exaggerated.

If we look in to the use of ROOSD from the point of view of CD, it tells some advocates of CD they have been looking in all the wrong places for their evidence. It would be much wiser to look at the action around mechanical room floors, which may or may not be exceptions for the smooth progression of the ROOSD process. And also, of course, collapse initiation.

There can be little doubt that many advocates of CD exaggerate the need of destructive devices, or physical work needed to bring the buildings down as witnessed. Much of the "debate" has revolved around such logic. To them I say: Open your eyes and think about where to look for your evidence!!

Basquearche: good points but you are freely mixing his WTC2 argument in the graphic with the lean. You also mix the BZ argument, which is indeed a most optimistic case, with BL, which is an attempt to calculate the actual dynamics of collapse progression, which should match data for real buildings.

In BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs. Does he mean this literally? If you can answer this correctly, you will have convinced me. If he means this literally and still believes this today, then perhaps you can see my point.

(As far as I know he still insists that crush down must run to completion before crush up begins with the same logic presented in BL. If not, your point is made. If so, my point is made.)

 

[beachnut]

My mistake. ...

Sheeples, because the conclusions of the study neither confirm no deny the possibility of CD. I wanted to explicitly state this, hence the last paragraph.

... no need to lace a building with explosives "from head to toe". Estimates of the amount of explosives required have been greatly exaggerated.

...
There can be little doubt that many advocates of CD exaggerate the need of destructive devices, or physical work needed to bring the buildings down as witnessed. Much of the "debate" has revolved around such logic. To them I say: Open your eyes and think about where to look for your evidence!!

...

lol, your CD delusions is wanting so bad to be let out as you defend your CD tripe in the conclusion and failed to see the rest of the nonsense. What was your engineering degree in?

Sheeples? And you are the one pushing delusions of CD without evidence.

Funnies part of your post; you defend CD which would leave evidence. The silent explosives; where are they? Zero thermite products found at the WTC, just some dust which Jones and cult members fabricated a paper and declared the dust nano-thermite, and then Jones goes more insane and pronounces Haiti earthquake was caused by the USA.

I hope Jones cult members and Gage's travel club scam members join you in a debate which produces fantasy conclusions. You guys are entertaining as you perpetuate and try to perfect failure taking it to new levels of stupidity.

You better find that silent RDX and the thermite that evaporates. Wait, are you using Judy Wood's beam weapon to erase all traces of thermite? You guys want to debate insane ideas? Is it to grade which insane idea of CD is the dumbest?


... what kind of engineer are you? Failed conclusion Engineer?

My mistake. ...
Sheeples, because the conclusions ...

You introduce material into the conclusion that is off topic; you also state things that are pure conjecture, but you are so hung up on CD you can't see it.

... free from any kind of abuse. ....

Sheeples, ...

Your paper is nonsense. I am an engineer who supervised projects for the USAF, my assessment is based on 36 years of experience. There is no value at all to your paper.

Hello,
I am requesting feedback on a paper ...
Thanks.

I delivered. You are welcome.

Sheeples, ...

Is this your engineer experience showing?

 

[Reactor drone]

By choosing perimeter seams carefully, all OOS contents and the entire perimeter can be intentionally dropped and steered to earth as desired in a remarkably controlled, orderly fashion.

I think I see the logic here. Thermite fails as a demolition tool because it can't be used to sever a vertical column but, by suggesting the collapse of the composite floors will cause a natural collapse, he can now suggest thermite was used to sever the floor to column connections ( a horizontal cut).

I'm actually surprised it's taken this long to come up.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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.

You started to write a paper on forensic engineering and accidentally wrote a science fiction novel.

Try adding spaceships and big breasted, half-naked alien chicks (or big breasted half-naked alien men, if that's your thing) and resubmitting it to an appropriate venue.

 

[T.A.M.]

My mistake. TAM. You've done an excellent job at promoting a fair, open debate. The insults are well-checked, as demonstrated in this thread.

TAM. your feelings about the millions of people who cannot believe the official version of events are well known. Can you imagine what some of them must think of you?

Yet, were we to allow open debate, would it be conductive to allow them to openly voice their own juicy opinions of you personally in their arguments?

1. I am not a mod, so I have no direct control over the fair open debate promotion beyond saying it is a good thing, which back a couple of years ago when these issues were fresh and new, I did.

2. If you think their are millions who are truthers, you are delusional. Are there millions world wide who believe we don't know the ENTIRE TRUTH about 9/11, sure, and I am one of them. I think there are lots of tid bits about what went on that day, and in the months leading up, that we do not, and likely will not know.

The difference is I can accept it because, the plethora of legitimate sound evidence points to a conclusive narrative, and those tid bits, no matter how many, will not change that narrative. Truthers are different. They see the tid bits as little thread leads, that if pulled, will unravel the woven story...they are stupid dupes, almost to the last.

3. I don't give a flying **** what they think of me, and any of them who wish to make their views of me known, may do so, at my encouragement. In the end I sleep at night, and I know I am on the right side of history. The truther morons are, for the most part, too stupid to see they are on the wrong side.

TAM

 

[R.Mackey]

I think I see the logic here. Thermite fails as a demolition tool because it can't be used to sever a vertical column but, by suggesting the collapse of the composite floors will cause a natural collapse, he can now suggest thermite was used to sever the floor to column connections ( a horizontal cut).

I'm actually surprised it's taken this long to come up.

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.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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

Sheeples, because the conclusions of the study neither confirm no deny the possibility of CD. I wanted to explicitly state this, hence the last paragraph.

Why? your conclusions don't confirm or deny a million different possible initiation mechanisms, like for example King Kong climbing on it, yet Kong gets no mention in your conclusions.

 

[Major_Tom]

R Mackey writes:
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.

This is a common complaint, that this paper is presenting material already known. I assume that the existing literature he mentions is the series of Bazant papers.

This can be addressed in 2 ways: From the point of view of science and from the point of view of the possibility of demolition.

Let's begin with pure science:

Question 1: R Mackey or anyone, do you consider the equations of motion in BL, equations 12 and 17, to be accurate considering the information in my study?

My answer would have to be "no". What is yours?

If your answer is also no, then obviously this information would show BV to be in need of serious revision.
.............................................................

Question 2: Is the following statement true or false:

Dr Bazant believes that a crush-down phase must continue to completion before a crush up phase can begin.

If you answer false, please provide evidence to the contrary.

 

[BasqueArch]

Major Tom continues not reading or not understanding or misinterpreting Bazant

.....

<snip>
.............................................................

Question 2: Is the following statement true or false:

Dr Bazant believes that a crush-down phase must continue to completion before a crush up phase can begin.

If you answer false, please provide evidence to the contrary.

From your paper: (my underline)
"Correcting Mistakes Resulting From Overzealous Attachment to Bazant & Verdure, Bazant & Le Formulations of Progressive Collapse.Bazant and Verdure (BV) and Bazant and Le were written at a time when almost nothing was known about the WTC1 surviving core and perimeter sheet behavior.

Since BV was written some significant features of the collapse were observed and verified, showing that many of the concepts used in the paper like an indestructible upper block and a "crush down" happening before a "crush up" to be be incorrect. BV describes the downward continued collapse propagation of the building to be the result of columns buckling and rebuckling. The collapse propagation rate is taken as the rate of column rebuckling."

Major Tom, you don't read too good.
The answer to your Question 2 is true when you:

“For our purpose, we may assume that all the impact forces go
into the columns and are distributed among them equally. Unlikely
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. If the
building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact
forces, it would fail under any other distribution.” -Bazant
....................................................................

Question 3: In the actual collapse of the Twin Towers did all the impact forces go into the columns and were distributed among them equally?
Yes or No.

 

[TruthersLie]

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

Sheeples, because the conclusions of the study neither confirm no deny the possibility of CD. I wanted to explicitly state this, hence the last paragraph.

There is no doubt the paper describes natural processes in peeling and ROOSD, but one cannot conclude no CD occurred. Basically, I am telling those who suspect CD that there is no need to lace a building with explosives "from head to toe". Estimates of the amount of explosives required have been greatly exaggerated.

If we look in to the use of ROOSD from the point of view of CD, it tells some advocates of CD they have been looking in all the wrong places for their evidence. It would be much wiser to look at the action around mechanical room floors, which may or may not be exceptions for the smooth progression of the ROOSD process. And also, of course, collapse initiation.

There can be little doubt that many advocates of CD exaggerate the need of destructive devices, or physical work needed to bring the buildings down as witnessed. Much of the "debate" has revolved around such logic. To them I say: Open your eyes and think about where to look for your evidence!!

I am skipping through most of the heavy engineering in the "paper" you present to just focus on this tiny part.

So now you are trying to shift away from massive explosives needed to bring the towers down, to a much smaller amount of explosives limited to just the collapse initiation zone in the towers.

Is that correct?
Can you explain to me how any explosives would survive
a. the impact of the jets
b. the ensuing fires

Or better yet, how anyone could KNOW where the jets would strike and then be able to install explosives which
a. no one noticied (Those floors were packed with people every day)
b. which would survive the impact of the jets and the ensuing fires.

Thank you.

 

[TruthersLie]

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




Why? your conclusions don't confirm or deny a million different possible initiation mechanisms, like for example King Kong climbing on it, yet Kong gets no mention in your conclusions.

[qimg]http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu158/thesmith1_photos/king_kong_1976.jpg[/qimg]

Not KONG.

MOTHRA

sheesh... get it right.

 

[Major_Tom]

Basquearch, Your quote is from BZ, where he gives a most optimistic scenario for survival of a single collision after a 12 ft freefall.

I'm sure you understand that the purpose and reasoning behind BV is very different, since in it he is deriving actual equations of motion to be tested on actual buildings, not a best case scenario at all.

You cannot freely mix quotes from the two papers without understanding the difference

Both you and NB are correct in that I should remove any references to BZ. Thanks for pointing that out. After this post I will go back and remove any references to BZ to avoid further confusion.

After that, I will return to address the issue of BV and BL.