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 (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf) talk about the column failure mode as the limit state as, "[u]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 (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf) 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. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22open+office+space+flooring%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=) 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:confused:

[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:confused:

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. :p

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 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/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]

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/10/WTCdesign.jpg

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.

[DGM]

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/10/WTCdesign.jpg

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


I would prefer "Fred". OOS is so impersonal. :D

[carlitos]

The whole width of the core was discovered by femr and another poster, actually.

You may want to rephrase this?

[femr2]

You may want to rephrase this?

Even these crude images provide enough information to conclude that a significant height the full width of the core survived the initial phase of destruction...

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/2/285877515.jpg
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/2/697379613.jpg

Or are you making bones about who or when such information was *discovered* ? If so, meh. Doesn't matter. Point is clear, though reference to who and when is always useful.

[Major_Tom]

Carlitos, and others: Thanks for pointing out when something is unclear, especially in Appendix A and B. I'll clean it up as I receive input.

[Newtons Bit]

Is anyone else interested in wasting any more of their time with this? I'm not. Femr2 is asking for evidence of things that happened IN THIS VERY THREAD. I'm not going to play that game.

Major_Tom wants to argue against a strawman Bazant. Repeated quotes from the paper (some of which he has provided) doesn't seem to persuade him that he is looking at the papers wrong. He also wants to say that he's the first person to come up with the idea of the columns not hitting each other. Here's a post by PhantomWolf from my very first thread on this forum:

Just a point of note here. Really there isn't a lot of point at looking at how the preimeter columns should have reacted when the upper ones hit them because that's not what happened anyway. The upper columns come down on the floor of the section below, hitting the connections of the truss and preimeter columns. This area was designed for lateral loading between the primeter and the core, not for vertical loading of the top of the building impacting onto it. The top of the building acted like an off center tube sliding down inside a second tube slicing the floors off of the columns and pushing the outer tube out into the "banana peel" we saw as the buildings collapsed.

Calculating how much energy the columns should have been able to withstand and speculating about the dynamic forces really is pointless when the video shows us that the part that took the hit was the part that didn't have any of these things there. As a result it was like hitting a tightly held piece of paper with a sledgehammer and expecting it to stop the blow.

That's May 2007. Before Major_Tom even joined this forum.

If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go off and do something more productive than talking with liars and boasters now.

[beachnut]

What does this junk have to do with your conclusions?

cores which a demolition team can exploit by setting up sufficient initial conditions higher in the towers. How can you introduce BS in your conclusion due to some delusions of an inside job 911 truth fantasy?

Is the paper about your delusions on 911?
Are you trying to back in support for your 911 fantasy?
Goal of the paper?


all core columns on the north side of the building survived the initial collapse. Every core column in the 500 and 600 rows remained standing from 40 to 70 stories high and at least one pair from rows 700 and 800 remained visible after the rest of the building completely fell.

"all core columns", ? It does not make sense to say all then qualify it. "Some core columns on the north side collapsed shortly after the shell and floors failed."

This pretty much ruins the faster than free-fall 911 truth side of the house, and how does thermite and beam weapons, or nukes fit in with your paper?

[ElMondoHummus]

Major_Tom wants to argue against a strawman Bazant. Repeated quotes from the paper (some of which he has provided) doesn't seem to persuade him that he is looking at the papers wrong. He also wants to say that he's the first person to come up with the idea of the columns not hitting each other. Here's a post by PhantomWolf from my very first thread on this forum:



That's May 2007. Before Major_Tom even joined this forum.

If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go off and do something more productive than talking with liars and boasters now.


PhantomWolf was not the only one. From a pair of September 2007 posts ([URL="http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2940627#post2940627):
Notice how he fails to mention that a tilting upper block would bring the edges of the perimeter columns straight down into the 100psf-rated floorslabs of the lower section, slicing through them like a hot knife through butter.
... and:
The worst mistake all these woo's make IMHO, is to assume that the falling upper block will be impacting the vertical structural members that constitute the system that takes the combined vertical load of the building.

It won't! It will hit the floor spans, the floor spans were most certainly never designed to support a load equal to the upper several stories of the structure let alone 1.3 times it. EVEN IF the upper block had settled slowly down on the next floor the building would have collapsed since the mass of the upper block is now primarily on the floor span rather than the columns. The floor fails and the upper block falls further, if it retains any velocity of its original fall then the next floor down will be even less able to arrest collapse.

The columns are also not simply having the upper block slide past them. They are being buffeted by the debris of the upper block.

I'm sure lots of other folks have said this here before too. Heck, for quite a while now, it's been one of the points we here have been trying to hammer into conspiracy peddlers: That one of the reasons the buildings failed was because the floors were stripped from the columns and removed all lateral support from them. Which removed their ability to merely stand straight up, let alone support any real weight. And that furthermore, the tilt of the upper section meant that a great deal of the columns would in fact not be able to land directly on lower columns, and that some would miss altogether and hit the floor pans. It's so common a response that even I know it, and I'm no engineer.

[femr2]

As is expected, there appears to be communication, er, barriers.

ROOSD is a description of progressive natural collapse of the outside core flooring, which is self sustaining given appropriate initiating conditions, and does so by providing appropriate confirmable visual observation from photographs and video.

It does not deal directly with the core.

It does not deal directly with initiation.

It is not a direct refudation of B&V.

It is not a direct refudation of CD, nor Total Global Collapse.


I assume that all posters so far don't actually disagree with the premise that the outside core flooring suffered from a self-sustaining natural collapse ?

If so, I do not see why there is such *tone* being used.
If not, speak up :)

I see no problem with stating things like *don't like the inclusion of X in the summary*, but an attempt to formalise a primary mechanism of destruction would not be something I would expect the stalwart JREF community to reject so off-hand.

To wander off into -delusions-, -beam weapons-, -fantasy- and -nukes- is simply ludicrous.

I note that there have been no posts from those who believe that explosives were required on every floor of each tower to achieve their destruction.

It will be interesting to see if presentation in the format the study is in will allow certain camps to find some common ground, or not.

[beachnut]

...It will be interesting to see if presentation in the format the study is in will allow certain camps to find some common ground, or not.

There is no common ground which ends with CD, thermite, beam weapons, nukes, and other nonsense 911 truth made up out of ignorance. Your delusions on 911 can't be supported.

911 truth makes up delusional conclusions and tries to back in evidence. Jones took dust and says it is thermite after he made up thermite as the mechanisms for collapse and now he is completely insane making claims US cause the Haiti earthquake.

You and Major Tom are lost in 911 truth and can't climb out of the hole of ignorance 911 truth built to trap the gullible; 8 years of woo, and you and Major Tom still think 911 was CD. Be proud you are 911 truth.

[femr2]

(sic) thermite, beam weapons, nukes, ignorance, delusions, delusional, insane, ignorance, woo

Awesome stuff. Careful of RSI though mate. It must get very, very boring posting the same set of words in a different order all the time.

Do you agree that progressive self-sustaining collapse of the outside core flooring was a primary mechanism of destruction, or not ?

(aka ROOSD, Runaway Open Office Space Destruction)

[sheeplesnshills]

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.



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?

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

[carlitos]

uAE6Il6OTcs

[femr2]

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

I know the question is for MT, but if I may...

Again, ROOSD is not a refudation of CD.
And it's not a refudation of natural global collapse.

It deals specifically with the phase of destruction clearly outlined.

Have you read the study ?

Here is where you are selecting CD from...

{I}s this proof that the collapses were natural?

Not at all. It means that in the WTC1, 2 design a runaway destruction potential has always existed in the OOS spaces completely surrounding the cores which a demolition team can exploit by setting up sufficient initial conditions higher in the towers.

ROOSD does not deal with initiation. It does not deal with the core.

Do you think that progressive self-sustaining collapse of the outside core floor structure (ROOSD) is a primary phase of destruction within the towers, or not ?

[Newtons Bit]

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

It's the ultimate culmination of truther evolution: that collapse would only require a collapse initiation, that explosives don't need to be placed on every floor, that the upper block didn't have to be dustified by nano-thermites to be destroyed.

Unfortunately, it is also completely destroys the visual "evidence" that originally convinced them of "inside job" when they first became truthers. Which means they're only truthers because they were truthers once and they're too stubborn and too committed to being truthers to change.

[beachnut]

Awesome stuff. Careful of RSI though mate. It must get very, very boring posting the same set of words in a different order all the time.

Do you agree that progressive self-sustaining collapse of the outside core flooring was a primary mechanism of destruction, or not ?

(aka ROOSD, Runaway Open Office Space Destruction)Boring, Not at all, it takes a few words to describe your delusions on 911. I can't find more words to describe nut case conclusions made while trying and failing to back in evidence for your CD delusions. As an engineer I find it sad you and Major Tom make up delusions about something so easy to understand.

lol, I have to have something to do while formating the 2TB drive in the LR computer, transferring files, and organizing the 7+TB drive array while mowing the lawn, servicing the hot tub, drinking all the Coca Cola, etc.

The primary mechanism of destruction, was a combination of the following events. Impacts 7 to 11 times greater than design, at 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy. Impacts with jet engines running near 100 percent which will essentially instantly ignite jet fuel. Jet fuel fires which set multiple floor office fires in seconds; jet fuel 10,000 gallons, 66,000 pounds of jet fuel. Impacts which destroyed the fire protection coatings all over the impact area and other floors! Fires fighting systems destroyed by impacts. Steel unprotected subjected to multiple floor giant fires, seen by many but denied by your fellow 911 truther delusion supporters.

Do you deny aircraft impact 7 to 11 times the design of the WTC were responsible for the WTC towers falling? Yes you do, you make up CD delusions because you lack the skill, knowledge, and experience to figure out 911.

The WTC were designed to survive an aircraft impact below 200 mph; the impacts on 911 were outside the design of the building and the chief structural engineer said the same. Studies prove the buildings would repel impacts below 200 mph. The primary cause of destruction was aircraft impacts at HIGH SPEED. Low speed impacts would not destroy the WTC towers; there is a paper about the impact speeds which confirm the design spec Robertson claims.

WTC7 burned all day and you make up lies about how it fell. Last time I checked when fires burn buildings can fall. Last time I checked CD makes loud noises not heard on 911. Last time I checked thermite leaves iron products, not found at the WTC. CD is not an option, why is it in the paper?

The evidence clearly show the WTC collapsed due to aircraft impacts and all the bad stuff that come with an aircraft loaded with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. No matter how much you study or model the different parts of the WTC collapse, you will not be able to back in CD or other 911 truth delusions. I read the paper, and the conclusion speaks for itself as it talks about demolition team can exploit . How truthy.

Where will this paper be published? At the insane Jones on-line Journal of woo?

Do you have a conclusion the WTC1,2,7 were CD or not? lol

Is Major Tom trying to back in support for so his delusion of a demolition team can exploit , will be true in his delusion?

No wonder you have to create your own forum to discuss this nonsense. You guys really have a problem with models.

The conclusions are delusions. Major Tom is talking about people blowing up the WTC. 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.

It is not new that a floor in the WTC can only hold so much weight; if a floor is overloaded it fails, then the next floor will fail. This is clearly found in NIST; you guys have done nothing but made another model which is as flawed as the models you fail to comprehend. I noticed the core also fell, what caused the core to fail shortly after the floors in the lower sections?

You believe CD was the primary mechanism! Your support of the paper will not lead to making your delusion come true. The core part is funny; is there a what happen to the core above the impact area paper coming out soon? Is there an appendix for what happen to the core sections not standing as long as some of the other core? Why did the core fall?

Why do you believe CD was the primary mechanism?

[femr2]

it takes a few words to describe your delusions on 911
What are my delusions Beachnut ? I suspect you have absolutely no idea of my position. You can bandy about as many words as you like, but your problem is that you ascribe a set of beliefs you yourself believe an entire section of people all share as gospel. Quite humerous really.

It's interesting to see you back in so much off topic verbage though. Anyone would think you were more guilty of the very thing you accuse others of.

But yes, to my mind the inaccurate depiction of initiation described within the NIST report requires more scrutiny, but this thread is most certainly not the place for that discussion. ROOSD is the topic here.

Reading between the lines, it looks like you agree with the premise of ROOSD. Fine ;)

[Newtons Bit]

As is expected, there appears to be communication, er, barriers.

ROOSD is a description of progressive natural collapse of the outside core flooring, which is self sustaining given appropriate initiating conditions, and does so by providing appropriate confirmable visual observation from photographs and video.

It does not deal directly with the core.

It does not deal directly with initiation.

It is not a direct refudation of B&V.

It is not a direct refudation of CD, nor Total Global Collapse.


I assume that all posters so far don't actually disagree with the premise that the outside core flooring suffered from a self-sustaining natural collapse ?

If so, I do not see why there is such *tone* being used.
If not, speak up :)

I see no problem with stating things like *don't like the inclusion of X in the summary*, but an attempt to formalise a primary mechanism of destruction would not be something I would expect the stalwart JREF community to reject so off-hand.

To wander off into -delusions-, -beam weapons-, -fantasy- and -nukes- is simply ludicrous.

I note that there have been no posts from those who believe that explosives were required on every floor of each tower to achieve their destruction.

It will be interesting to see if presentation in the format the study is in will allow certain camps to find some common ground, or not.

WTF? Do you expect us to not respond to claims in a paper simply because those claims aren't part of what you assume the main point of the paper is? Do you have any idea how insane that is?

[Major_Tom]

NB, thanks for the quote by Jaydee and you are certainly right about that.

It is hard to miss something this large
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/east_wall_peeling.jpg

Appendix B on peeling is just a more detailed presentation of that which is staring us all in the face.

I also realize your source of contention with my mentioning BV and BL in the paper, since you seem quite sure this is not intended as a collapse mechanism for WTC1, even though the paper begins thus:


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.

and I watched Dr Benson spend some time fitting WTC1 roofline drop data to it and using BL as proof that WTC1 crush-down must be complete before crush-up begins, just as Dr Bazant insists in BL, his reasoning being because columns cannot buckle upwards due to insufficient upward force (seriously, that is the reasoning in BL)

This perhaps confused me into believing he did try to propose a collapse propagation model for WTC1, and that is why I mention those papers in the ROOSD propagation study.

Concepts like crush down before crush up, with a diagram of WTC1 doing just that, according to you was proposed for buildings in general, not for WTC1 and such concepts are just a "best case scenario" and were not intended by Dr Bazant to be taken literally
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/BV_1_1.jpg

Since you are the first person I have heard say that, I still remain confused and though I should yield to your superior education and understanding on the subject, I'll still leave it in the study for now while noting your strong objection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If we put on our galoshes and wade through the steady stream of insults and other such manure posted in this thread, it seems pretty clear that we are all in agreement on all 4 physical observations in the paper and the conclusion which can be summarized:

ROOSD is the only known WTC1 collapse propagation model that agrees with all observables,

Though NB notes that I am clueless for calling the floor region in question OOS. An utter dolt.

Are there any objections to that claim?

[sheeplesnshills]

Do you think that progressive self-sustaining collapse of the outside core floor structure (ROOSD) is a primary phase of destruction within the towers, or not


Outside my area of expertise but yes in general the floors collapsing down between the two tubes of columns seems to be what happened. I don't think that was ever in dispute apart from amongst the crazier truthers with their squibs and freefall nonsense.

He needs to write up a Paper in the proper format and present it for peer review.

[Newtons Bit]

NB, thanks for the quote by Jaydee and you are certainly right about that.

I quoted PhantomWolf. Do you read what ANYONE writes?

It is hard to miss something this large
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/east_wall_peeling.jpg

Appendix B on peeling is just a more detailed presentation of that which is staring us all in the face.

I also realize your source of contention with my mentioning BV and BL in the paper, since you seem quite sure this is not intended as a collapse mechanism for WTC1, even though the paper begins thus:


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.

and I watched Dr Benson spend some time fitting WTC1 roofline drop data to it and using BL as proof that WTC1 crush-down must be complete before crush-up begins, just as Dr Bazant insists in BL, his reasoning being because columns cannot buckle upwards due to insufficient upward force (seriously, that is the reasoning in BL)

This perhaps confused me into believing he did try to propose a collapse propagation model for WTC1, and that is why I mention those papers in the ROOSD propagation study.

Concepts like crush down before crush up, with a diagram of WTC1 doing just that, according to you was proposed for buildings in general, not for WTC1 and such concepts are just a "best case scenario" and were not intended by Dr Bazant to be taken literally
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/BV_1_1.jpg

Since you are the first person I have heard say that, I still remain confused and though I should yield to your superior education and understanding on the subject, I'll still leave it in the study for now while noting your strong objection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

Incidentally, you haven't done anything to debunk crush-up / crush-down. Even in a floor failing model, crush-up / crush-down still applies due to the simple fact that there is very little force being applied to the upper block. The rubble layer is still doing all the destruction.

If we put on our galoshes and wade through the steady stream of insults and other such manure posted in this thread, it seems pretty clear that we are all in agreement on all 4 physical observations in the paper and the conclusion which can be summerized:

ROOSD is the only known WTC1 collapse propagation model that agrees with all observables,

Yes, the floors failed in the collapse, not the columns. Congratulations, you wrote a paper describing what the vast majority here has been saying since before you joined this forum.

Though NB notes that I am clueless for calling the floor region in question OOS. An utter dolt.

Actually I accused you making up words to sound like an expert with regards to the "OOS flooring" term. It's not used in engineering. Not that you're a dolt. I'd prefer to use the term "charlatan" now that you mention it.

Please see my previous statement of, "Do you read what ANYONE writes?" You have a seriously bad habit.

[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]

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.”

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_aJeegFsC3nY/R3L_2XdW1SI/AAAAAAAAAbY/uR21-Fs5wXE/s400/Picture+3.png
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.
http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/imgs/figure4.gif
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?:confused:


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? :confused:

[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:mad:

[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. :confused:

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

[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]

.....

<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. :confused:

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

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.

[Major_Tom]

Done, and that is an important change so thanks to the people who have noticed the mistake.

ROOSD, like BV, deals with collapse propagation of WTC1 and real buildings, not initiation. Basquearch, upon reading BV, please note how the equations of motion are derived by Bazant. His expression for how mass gathers in the driving mass and his derivation of the frictional force F rely on continuous column buckling and rebuckling. That has nothing to do with a best case scenario and the quote you give from BZ has nothing to do with his propagation model given in BV.

[Major_Tom]

Trutherslie asks:

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

These are good questions concerning initiation but they have nothing to do with the collapse propagation model or the study being discussed, so will only serve to distract from the present discussion.

Distraction would be useful from the point of view of people arguing that the ROOSD model contains no new information and is consistent with BV and BL, because I've asked some questions which will be very, very hard for for some of the participants to answer.

[Sam.I.Am]

Trutherslie asks:

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

These are good questions concerning initiation but they have nothing to do with the collapse propagation model or the study being discussed, so will only serve to distract from the present discussion.

Distraction would be useful from the point of view of people arguing that the ROOSD model contains no new information and is consistent with BV and BL, because I've asked some questions which will be very, very hard for for some of the participants to answer.

If it's such a distraction then why do you yourself mention it?

[T.A.M.]

Trutherslie asks:

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

These are good questions concerning initiation but they have nothing to do with the collapse propagation model or the study being discussed, so will only serve to distract from the present discussion.

Distraction would be useful from the point of view of people arguing that the ROOSD model contains no new information and is consistent with BV and BL, because I've asked some questions which will be very, very hard for for some of the participants to answer.

Not true. The premise of CD is timed explosives on various floors, the vast majority below the point of initiation, so survival of explosives is key to your propagation theory...as is the precision of striking the appropriate area with the aircraft, as to misstrike, in an area not set for initiation, but rather further down, might destroy tonnes of explosives design to propagate your CD collapse.

TAM:)

[beachnut]

...
These are good questions concerning initiation but they have nothing to do with the collapse propagation model or the study being discussed, so will only serve to distract from the present discussion.

Distraction would be useful from the point of view of people arguing that the ROOSD model contains no new information and is consistent with BV and BL, because I've asked some questions which will be very, very hard for for some of the participants to answer.
LOL, you paper has extraneous BS in it and the questions asked were idiotic ideas you brought up. Did you read your own paper? This is a joke, you Jones and Gage have no clue what happen on 911 so you try to manufacture doubt to fool others. 8 years and the best you can do is miss the fact your paper constantly gets off topic and is so broad in nature after it finishes you would have an F. What is your degree in? What engineering experience do you have.

Run away from questions your paper brings up; good job. Cut the crap out of your paper. With the evidence and your paper, you have debunked CD now and forever; which is correct since there were zero explosives and even less thermite used on 911.

8 years? 911 was solved in minutes by heroes, and then the rest of us caught up and you and 911 truth are not looking like you have a chance at reality.

[Major_Tom]

The quotes from the paper, given by Basquearch:

"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."
..............

Yes, these are true statements. If I was referring to BZ it would be untrue in a sense. BV derives equations of motion to match real building behavior. He derives a 1-D crush down equation based on continuous buckling and rebuckling of columns. This assumption is expressed in 2 ways within the derivation:

1) In his derivation of frictional force F
2) The way he treats the driving mass

This is different than the quote you gave, which is from BZ, a paper with a very different purpose and argument. The term most optimistic case for survival belongs with the BZ argument and has nothing to do with the BV equations of motion.
.......................

The concept of crush down, followed by crush up is from BV and BL. In BL he claims to prove that crush down must be complete before crush up can begin. If we read the study in the OP, that clearly did not happen.

Thanks for the feedback and let me know if you disagree with what I wrote.

[dafydd]

TAM. your feelings about the millions of people who cannot believe the official version of events are well known.)

Millions? As far as I can judge it's just a few nutters on the internet.I live in Belgium and I know only one mild non-active truther.There are a couple of loonies who go on the street sometimes in Brussels,but that's all. You must realize that you cannot accuse people of mass murder with no evidence and expect to be treated with respect.

[dafydd]

Trutherslie asks:

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

These are good questions concerning initiation but they have nothing to do with the collapse propagation model or the study being discussed, so will only serve to distract from the present discussion.

Distraction would be useful from the point of view of people arguing that the ROOSD model contains no new information and is consistent with BV and BL, because I've asked some questions which will be very, very hard for for some of the participants to answer.

Otherwise known as avoiding the awkward questions.

[achimspok]

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.

Can you explain a little bit? I'm not that intimate with thermite. How can a fire bring a building down if a much hotter fire cannot do it.

Oh, I think I see the logic here. Fire cannot do it at all. Is it correct? LOL

[funk de fino]

Can you explain a little bit? I'm not that intimate with thermite. How can a fire bring a building down if a much hotter fire cannot do it.

Oh, I think I see the logic here. Fire cannot do it at all. Is it correct? LOL

Have you got a translator for the above post?

[TruthersLie]

Trutherslie asks:

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

These are good questions concerning initiation but they have nothing to do with the collapse propagation model or the study being discussed, so will only serve to distract from the present discussion.

Distraction would be useful from the point of view of people arguing that the ROOSD model contains no new information and is consistent with BV and BL, because I've asked some questions which will be very, very hard for for some of the participants to answer.

I'm sorry. It is not a distraction. You are trying to put forth the idea that it wouldn't take explosives on every other floor or every third floor as proposed by Dr. Steven Jones.

You are trying to make the case that you agree with some of bazants early work and from the BLBG paper that once the collapse was initiated, it would then propogate to the ground.

you are then trying to set up the argument that you don't need thousands of tons of explosives, just precise amounts of explosives to have ONE FLOOR fall 12 feet.

Since YOU bring up the idea of CD in your paper, then you need to defend
A. how any explosives would survive the aircraft impact without detonating.
B. how any explosives would survive the ensuing fires across multiple floors
C. how any explosives would be capable of working after A and B above.
D. ah yes... the elevator upgrades/fire supression upgrades on the floors where the jets struck would be the cover to plant the explosives.
E. that leads to how did the jets manage to strike the right floors on the towers? (which leads to other huge conspiracy questions)

You bring up CD, not me. So please provide the support to back up the claim.

I understand why you don't want to answer these simple questions, as they open up a whole can of worms you don't want to deal with. Such as the logistics, the inability to remote control the jets, where are the passengers, who did it, etc...

[Seymour Butz]

so survival of explosives is key to your propagation theory...as is the precision of striking the appropriate area with the aircraft, as to misstrike, in an area not set for initiation, but rather further down, might destroy tonnes of explosives design to propagate your CD collapse.

TAM:)

This is exactly why some twoofs lie and claim that they hear hundreds of explosives going off in videos.

They realize that this kind of precision from a fast moving airplane is impossible, and can be scientifically refuted beyond question.

So their stupidity/trolling tendencies takes over, and they actually believe that spewing these types of lies will count for something, since what they claim to be hearing can't be scientifically refuted. Yet.

Especially since they're a joke and no one is in a tizzy to actually refute their lies scientifically with an analysis of available audio tracks.

So for now, they're in their own little world, safe to claim whatever they want, until someone actually does the work. But we all know that once this is done, they will just change to thermxte; or denial; or like I've seen repeatedly, appeals to magic by stating that the-military-has-technology-that-we-don't-know-about-which-can-include-silent-explosives-prove-me-wrong.

So now, all Major Tom needs to do is prove that the planes can be flown to hit an exact target at high speeds that his ROOSD requires.

Never.
Gonna.
Happen.

[DGM]

Have you got a translator for the above post?
My "babble-fish" translates it as: "I have nothing to say so I'll say this".

[Major_Tom]

Newtons Bit and R Mackey claim that the study provides no new information that was not known before.

Unless participants in the JREF forum have abandoned Bazant's opinions stated in BV and BL, this is provably false.

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


CRUSH DOWN FOLLOWED BY CRUSH UP, 2006-2010, R. I. P.

BAZANT AND VERDURE EQUATIONS OF MOTION, EQS 12 AND 17, 2006-2010, R. I. P.


If we accept the ROOSD study as accurate, one logical consequence is that the claims in the papers BV and BL are incorrect.

But don't believe me because I'm just a stupid "troofer" with a low IQ.


Let's ask R Mackey and NB the following questions and see what they have to say:

1) In BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs. Does he mean this literally?

2) Do you consider the equations of motion in BL, equations 12 and 17, to be accurate considering the information in the ROOSD study?

3) 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.

4) Is ROOSD consistent the claims of crush down preceding crush up in BV and BL?

[Telltale Tom]

I think the OOS, ROOSD, BV and BL should be RIP or BLT

And that you should rename your theory, the Super Hot Initiation Theory,
which people would find easier to remember.

While your theory does suggest how a controlled demolition could take place it also implies that all the evidence that is on the ae911truth web-site is all lies. Can it be the truth if you are saying that all the other evidence is false... that's tricky?

Why not present to next years Structures Congress in Pittsburgh to 5,000 engineers. I would like to see what reaction you get.

[T.A.M.]

Newtons Bit and R Mackey claim that the study provides no new information that was not known before.

Unless participants in the JREF forum have abandoned Bazant's opinions stated in BV and BL, this is provably false.

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


CRUSH DOWN FOLLOWED BY CRUSH UP, 2006-2010, R. I. P.

BAZANT AND VERDURE EQUATIONS OF MOTION, EQS 12 AND 17, 2006-2010, R. I. P.


If we accept the ROOSD study as accurate, one logical consequence is that the claims in the papers BV and BL are incorrect.

But don't believe me because I'm just a stupid "troofer" with a low IQ.


Let's ask R Mackey and NB the following questions and see what they have to say:

1) In BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs. Does he mean this literally?

2) Do you consider the equations of motion in BL, equations 12 and 17, to be accurate considering the information in the ROOSD study?

3) 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.

4) Is ROOSD consistent the claims of crush down preceding crush up in BV and BL?

Truth Movement 2001 - 2008, RIP

TAM:D

[Newtons Bit]

Newtons Bit and R Mackey claim that the study provides no new information that was not known before.

Unless participants in the JREF forum have abandoned Bazant's opinions stated in BV and BL, this is provably false.

We've already posted quotes from people on this very forum that were talking about the vast majority of the columns not buckling in the collapse. You've acknowledged this fact. Do you have an incredibly short memory or do you routinely alter history in your mind to fit the new argument you wish to make?

If we accept the ROOSD study as accurate, one logical consequence is that the claims in the papers BV and BL are incorrect.

But don't believe me because I'm just a stupid "troofer" with a low IQ.

You have said so.

1) In BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs. Does he mean this literally?

2) Do you consider the equations of motion in BL, equations 12 and 17, to be accurate considering the information in the ROOSD study?


ffs Read the paper. Here, let me explain it to you:

The upper block is accelerating at near g. This means that there is very little force being applied to it. We can imply that the absolute maximum height of destruction occurring through the upper block will happen at a rate equal to (g - a). However the upper block has some residual strength. This force is much less than the original capacity upper block which is somewhere in the neighborhood of 3*m*g.

There will be, during the initial stages of the collapse that forms the rubble layer, destruction on both the upper block and lower block. But once it gets moving? Not so much.

You've provided no information on how this is incorrect.

[sheeplesnshills]

Newtons Bit and R Mackey claim that the study provides no new information that was not known before.

Unless participants in the JREF forum have abandoned Bazant's opinions stated in BV and BL, this is provably false.

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


CRUSH DOWN FOLLOWED BY CRUSH UP, 2006-2010, R. I. P.

BAZANT AND VERDURE EQUATIONS OF MOTION, EQS 12 AND 17, 2006-2010, R. I. P.


If we accept the ROOSD study as accurate, one logical consequence is that the claims in the papers BV and BL are incorrect.

But don't believe me because I'm just a stupid "troofer" with a low IQ.


Let's ask R Mackey and NB the following questions and see what they have to say:

1) In BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs. Does he mean this literally?

2) Do you consider the equations of motion in BL, equations 12 and 17, to be accurate considering the information in the ROOSD study?

3) 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.

4) Is ROOSD consistent the claims of crush down preceding crush up in BV and BL?


Really who cares what the exact crush down mode was and whether or not the top crushed up as well (I think it clearly would and did)?. I think we are all agreed on that once the top and especially the floors started moving the building was doomed to collapse as it did.

All that left to argue about what was the initiation mechanism. Since we have hi-def video of a plane hitting and huge damage and fires and that the initiation started exactly where the planes hit there are no longer any rational reasons for suspecting foul play in the collapse.
Now one can still fantasize about MIHOP and LIHOP but you have to face up the the facts that there was nothing even remotely suspicious about the collapses.

[Reactor drone]

We've already posted quotes from people on this very forum that were talking about the vast majority of the columns not buckling in the collapse. You've acknowledged this fact. Do you have an incredibly short memory or do you routinely alter history in your mind to fit the new argument you wish to make?

If we accept the ROOSD study as accurate, one logical consequence is that the claims in the papers BV and BL are incorrect.



You have said so.



ffs Read the paper. Here, let me explain it to you:

The upper block is accelerating at near g. This means that there is very little force being applied to it. We can imply that the absolute maximum height of destruction occurring through the upper block will happen at a rate equal to (g - a). However the upper block has some residual strength. This force is much less than the original capacity upper block which is somewhere in the neighborhood of 3*m*g.

There will be, during the initial stages of the collapse that forms the rubble layer, destruction on both the upper block and lower block. But once it gets moving? Not so much.

You've provided no information on how this is incorrect.

I think his main point is that photos show X number of floors of core remain standing after the collapse therefore the top of the building must have been destroyed before all of the lower section was.

I'm not sure whether the Bazant studies took into account the differences in the structure of the building with height or considered them to be homogeneous but either way I think expecting a precise description of a chaotic system is asking for a level of precision that isn't possible, much like the complaints about the WTC7 collapse model not looking exactly right.

[achimspok]

The upper block is accelerating at near g.

That's wrong.
1) The "upper block" accelerates at about 6.6m/s^2 until reaching a terminal velocity.
2) The "rubble layer" isn't really a layer. It's more like an avalanche that (for WTC1) first becomes visible at about floor 85. These avalanches didn't accelerate at all. These avalanches moved at velocities of 25-27m/s downwards at different elevations. (Smaller avalanches e.g. between floor 85 and 75 in the center of the west face reached about 100m/s suggesting a quasi simultaneous collapse of the short trusses due to a partially core collapse.)
3) Despite the fact of the "missing" acceleration of theses avalanches the SE avalanche started at the same elevation like the front of falling debris outside of the building.
By simple logic it is obvious that either the rubble moved faster than the "upper block" or the falling debris was delayed or the rubble started at a lower elevation than the 98th floor.


This means that there is very little force being applied to it.

That's wrong. A terminal velocity means force. It means also that any model of a consistent "upper block" is utter nonsense. Furthermore, Major Tom gave a pretty good description of what might have happen instead of some "hammer down" simplification. If true then these debris avalanches inside the tower separated the lions share of mass from the core. That explains the remaining part of the core pretty well. On the other hand it suggests that the missing part of the core either collapsed in front of the debris avalanches or at the very same time.


There will be, during the initial stages of the collapse that forms the rubble layer, destruction on both the upper block and lower block. But once it gets moving? Not so much.

Well, that's wrong. Once more and more masses are separated from the core structure of both parts (as implied by the MT article) the weaker steel structure directly impacts the increasingly stronger steel structure (except the hat truss). So it is reasonable to expect an early complete destruction of the so called upper part.


You've provided no information on how this is incorrect.
Let's say, not one of the whole bunch of papers about a consistent upper block theory provided any shred of information how this probably could be correct.

[Major_Tom]

The nose hits the middle column of the middle panel. That's pretty good flying.
..................................

NB, in just 3 pages you've managed to put not just one foot, but both feet in your mouth. Are you seriously going to persist in your claims about BV and BL?

We'll go over the papers section by section if necessary. You would be able to see some of the mistakes you are making by answering the following 4 questions:


1) In BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs. Does he mean this literally?

2) Do you consider the equations of motion in BL, equations 12 and 17, to be accurate considering the information in the ROOSD study?

3) 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.

4) Is ROOSD consistent the claims of crush down preceding crush up in BV and BL?


But if you want to drag this out, that's fine by me.
....................................

Guys, you don't have to be a genius to see major holes in BV and BL at this point.

If you have a sense of humor, the Bazant and Le paper is actually very funny in some parts. For me it is hard to believe anyone took this stuff seriously before, but when considering ROOSD, the earnestness behind some of the claims is just plain funny.

Consider from BL:

"So it must be concluded that the simplifying hypothesis of
one-way crushing (i.e., of absence of simultaneous crush-up),
made in the original paper, was perfectly justified and caused
only an imperceptible difference in the results. The crush-up
simultaneous with the crush down is found to have advanced
into the overlying story by only 37 mm for the North Tower
and 26 mm for the South Tower. This means that the initial
crush-up phase terminates when the axial displacement of
columns is only about 10 times larger than their maximum
elastic deformation. Hence, simplifying the analysis by neglecting
the initial two-way crushing phase was correct and
accurate."


Or how about this from BL:

"Blocks C and A can, of course, deform. Yet, contrary to
the discusser’s claim, they may be treated in calculations as
rigid because their elastic deformations are about 1,000 times
smaller than the deformations at the crushing front."


You have to wonder what world Dr Bazant was living in when he wrote this. Yet so many of you, without understanding any of what he is saying, without being able to follow the reasoning, without being able to use a Lagrangian formulation to solve equations of motion for the simplest systems, lecture me on it's meaning.

And you believe it because it was written in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008, and you don't know any better.

[Newtons Bit]

And... I'm done with this truther. Major_Tom can admit that people were talking about non-buckled columns prior to him even joining here, then still claim that his idea is unique and special the next day.

I'm not going to go around and around with another reality changing truther like Heiwa.

[Newtons Bit]

That's wrong.
1) The "upper block" accelerates at about 6.6m/s^2 until reaching a terminal velocity.
2) The "rubble layer" isn't really a layer. It's more like an avalanche that (for WTC1) first becomes visible at about floor 85. These avalanches didn't accelerate at all. These avalanches moved at velocities of 25-27m/s downwards at different elevations. (Smaller avalanches e.g. between floor 85 and 75 in the center of the west face reached about 100m/s suggesting a quasi simultaneous collapse of the short trusses due to a partially core collapse.)
3) Despite the fact of the "missing" acceleration of theses avalanches the SE avalanche started at the same elevation like the front of falling debris outside of the building.
By simple logic it is obvious that either the rubble moved faster than the "upper block" or the falling debris was delayed or the rubble started at a lower elevation than the 98th floor.


That's wrong. A terminal velocity means force. It means also that any model of a consistent "upper block" is utter nonsense. Furthermore, Major Tom gave a pretty good description of what might have happen instead of some "hammer down" simplification. If true then these debris avalanches inside the tower separated the lions share of mass from the core. That explains the remaining part of the core pretty well. On the other hand it suggests that the missing part of the core either collapsed in front of the debris avalanches or at the very same time.


Well, that's wrong. Once more and more masses are separated from the core structure of both parts (as implied by the MT article) the weaker steel structure directly impacts the increasingly stronger steel structure (except the hat truss). So it is reasonable to expect an early complete destruction of the so called upper part.


Let's say, not one of the whole bunch of papers about a consistent upper block theory provided any shred of information how this probably could be correct.

I see you've managed to agree with me many times while still claiming to disagree with me. :boggled::boggled::boggled:

[R.Mackey]

And... I'm done with this truther. Major_Tom can admit that people were talking about non-buckled columns prior to him even joining here, then still claim that his idea is unique and special the next day.

I'm not going to go around and around with another reality changing truther like Heiwa.

I don't think there's any other kind at this point. :D

Personally, I like how he seems to think Bazant and Le (2002) is supposed to be an accurate description of the collapse rather than a limiting case, or that he thinks that plus Bazant and Verdure (2006) cover the entire scope of the literature. As if we hadn't explained this to practically every Truther who ever lived a million times each.

Ah well. I guess it keeps them occupied, at least.

[Major_Tom]

Enlighten us, R Mackey. Can you answer these questions?

1) In BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs. Does he mean this literally?

2) Do you consider the equations of motion in BL, equations 12 and 17, to be accurate considering the information in the ROOSD study?

3) 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.

4) Is ROOSD consistent the claims of crush down preceding crush up in BV and BL?

Teach us how quotes like

"So it must be concluded that the simplifying hypothesis of
one-way crushing (i.e., of absence of simultaneous crush-up),
made in the original paper, was perfectly justified and caused
only an imperceptible difference in the results. The crush-up
simultaneous with the crush down is found to have advanced
into the overlying story by only 37 mm for the North Tower
and 26 mm for the South Tower. This means that the initial
crush-up phase terminates when the axial displacement of
columns is only about 10 times larger than their maximum
elastic deformation. Hence, simplifying the analysis by neglecting
the initial two-way crushing phase was correct and
accurate."

Represent a limiting case.

[Myriad]

Bazant's model is a limiting case representing the most favorable assumptions for collapse arrest. Among those assumptions is that all the weight of the falling mass -- even the already crushed and broken rubble -- somehow lands squarely on columns.

In that model, meaning under those assumptions, crush-down precedes crush-up. Bazant shows how and why.

The extent to which crush-down did not precede crush-up in the actual collapse indicates only that those favorable assumptions for collapse arrest were not true, so collapse arrest was even more impossible.

Try this analogy, Major Tom: suppose you're skydiving and your chute fails to open. Bazant, who happens to be looking on, quickly assesses the situation and says, "His best chance to survive is if he lands on that giant pile of mattresses over there. But even then, my calculations say the landing will kill him." You respond (since you have nothing better to do whilst plummeting earthward), "Ha! I'm landing nowhere near those mattresses! In fact, I'm heading right for that Upright Steel Spikes Inc. storage yard 1000 feet west instead. You believe I'm going to land on the mattresses but the facts contradict you. So your prediction that I'm going to die has no validity!

At that point Bazant rightly figures that there's no point in saying anything further. Why bother to argue with someone who thinks that proving a situation is worse than the best-case scenario somehow means that one should expect better than the best-case outcome?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[bio]

(...) Among those assumptions is that all the weight of the falling mass -- even the already crushed and broken rubble -- somehow lands squarely on columns.

In that model, meaning under those assumptions, crush-down precedes crush-up. Bazant shows how and why.

(...)

When the falling mass was "crushed and broken rubble", then crush-up had taken place! How can you say then in the next sentence, that with that assumption crush down precedes crush-up?

:confused:

[Myriad]

When the falling mass was "crushed and broken rubble", then crush-up had taken place! How can you say then in the next sentence, that with that assumption crush down precedes crush-up?

:confused:


Why does rubble imply crush-up? You seem to be assuming that falling rubble could only come from pieces of the falling upper block, but there is no reason to assume any such thing. Rubble comes from whatever is being crushed. Crush-down produces rubble. The crushed and broken rubble falls due to being pushed down by the falling upper block, and/or being itself acted upon by the earth's gravitational field.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[bio]

Why does rubble imply crush-up? You seem to be assuming that falling rubble could only come from pieces of the falling upper block, but there is no reason to assume any such thing. Rubble comes from whatever is being crushed. Crush-down produces rubble. The crushed and broken rubble falls due to being pushed down by the falling upper block, and/or being itself acted upon by the earth's gravitational field.

Respectfully,
Myriad

okay - the rubble "from the falling mass" does not come from the upper block. :eek:

[Dave Rogers]

okay - the rubble "from the falling mass" does not come from the upper block. :eek:

Where do you think the rubble from the lower block goes?

Dave

[bio]

Where do you think the rubble from the lower block goes?

Dave

yes - down.

it is incredible, what you guys are saying. Everybody can see in the videos, that there is no "rigid" upper block, it was crushed into rubble, everybody can see that. How can you tell otherwise?

Never before, the craziness of this official paradigm has become so clear.

[Dave Rogers]

yes - down.

So the rubble from the lower block still exists in your world. That's a relief. Now, what's wrong with that being the source of the majority of the rubble forming layer B?

If you were to actually read Bazant's papers for comprehension, rather than deciding what strawman you want to attribute to them, you would see that the analysis predicts that crush-up and crush-down will initially both occur, but that the rate of crush-up will quickly decay to zero while the rate of crush-down increases. This is an idealised case, and the presence of damage to the structure above or below the collapse initiation zone will modify the precise amount of crush-up initially observed, but at no point is Bazant claiming that there is no crush-up until crush-down is complete; he's determining that a very small amount of initial crush-up occurs, but that it self-terminates until the upper block contacts the ground. As a result, a small proportion of the rubble comes from the upper block, and the majority from the lower.

it is incredible, what you guys are saying. Everybody can see in the videos, that there is no "rigid" upper block, it was crushed into rubble, everybody can see that. How can you tell otherwise?

Funnily enough, no, the rest of us can't see that, because the dust ejected by the collapse obscures vision of the upper block part way into the collapse. Since we can't tell what happens to things we can't see, we can either make up something that fits our prejudices or model the physics of the collapse mathematically and draw provisional conclusions. The first approach seems to be working very nicely for you, to the extent that you've convinced yourself you can see something that's hidden in a dust cloud. For the rest of us, we'd rather start from what we can see then decide on a conclusion, than start from a conclusion then decide what we can see.

Dave

[bio]

(...)


Funnily enough, no, the rest of us can't see that, because the dust ejected by the collapse obscures vision of the upper block part way into the collapse. (...)

that is obviously not the truth.

The upper block of WTC-1 went down and a big part crashed into rubble in the first seconds of collapse. There, in the first two seconds of collapse, was no big dust cloud, which hindered the vision.

[bio]

(...)

If you were to actually read Bazant's papers for comprehension, rather than deciding what strawman you want to attribute to them, you would see that the analysis predicts that crush-up and crush-down will initially both occur, but that the rate of crush-up will quickly decay to zero while the rate of crush-down increases. This is an idealised case, and the presence of damage to the structure above or below the collapse initiation zone will modify the precise amount of crush-up initially observed, but at no point is Bazant claiming that there is no crush-up until crush-down is complete; he's determining that a very small amount of initial crush-up occurs, but that it self-terminates until the upper block contacts the ground. As a result, a small proportion of the rubble comes from the upper block, and the majority from the lower.

(...)

I make up nothing, I just cited Myrad "Why does rubble imply crush-up? You seem to be assuming that falling rubble could only come from pieces of the falling upper block, but there is no reason to assume any such thing."

So Myrad is debunked by a fellow debunker ;)

According to you, there was crush up but only at the beginning and with a "very small amount". Why?

[Myriad]

Once again (well probably more, but once at a time): I make no claims about which block the rubble came from in the actual collapses. I merely point out that in Bazant's model, as a direct result of making the assumptions most favorable to collapse arrest, crush-down diverges from crush-up very early in the process and crush-down then predominates until the upper block reaches the ground.

If the actual collapses behaved differently, all that means is that the process was less favorable to collapse arrest than Bazant assumed as a limiting case. So collapse arrest was impossible by an even wider margin.

Of course we already knew this, because that's what analyzing a limiting case means.

The bottom line is, nothing offered in this thread helps any known Truther argument in any way whatsoever.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Dave Rogers]

that is obviously not the truth.

The upper block of WTC-1 went down and a big part crashed into rubble in the first seconds of collapse. There, in the first two seconds of collapse, was no big dust cloud, which hindered the vision.

You're changing your story now, are you? You were claiming that the top block was smashed into rubble; now you're saying that 'a big part' was smashed into rubble, and that you only saw the first two seconds. At the end of that two seconds, there was still a large part of the upper block intact, and you don't know what happened to it after that because you couldn't see it. So your observation - now you've admitted to what you actually observed, rather than what you initially claimed you observed - is in fact completely consistent with an initial limited amount of crush-up, followed by primarily crush-down.

I make up nothing, I just cited Myrad "Why does rubble imply crush-up? You seem to be assuming that falling rubble could only come from pieces of the falling upper block, but there is no reason to assume any such thing."

I suggest you look up the meaning of the word 'only'. Myriad is pointing out that some or all of the rubble could come from the lower block, which you've now admitted, and that therefore the existence of rubble doesn't imply crush-up, which is elementary logic.

According to you, there was crush up but only at the beginning and with a "very small amount". Why?

This is from Bazant's papers, which I suggest you re-read (I forget which one, but it won't hurt you to re-read them all).

Dave

[bio]

Enlighten us, R Mackey. Can you answer these questions?

1) In BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs. Does he mean this literally?

2) Do you consider the equations of motion in BL, equations 12 and 17, to be accurate considering the information in the ROOSD study?

3) 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.

4) Is ROOSD consistent the claims of crush down preceding crush up in BV and BL?

Teach us how quotes like

"So it must be concluded that the simplifying hypothesis of
one-way crushing (i.e., of absence of simultaneous crush-up),
made in the original paper, was perfectly justified and caused
only an imperceptible difference in the results. The crush-up
simultaneous with the crush down is found to have advanced
into the overlying story by only 37 mm for the North Tower
and 26 mm for the South Tower. This means that the initial
crush-up phase terminates when the axial displacement of
columns is only about 10 times larger than their maximum
elastic deformation. Hence, simplifying the analysis by neglecting
the initial two-way crushing phase was correct and
accurate."

Represent a limiting case.

I support you in asking these straight forward questions.

[Major_Tom]

I'm very glad other posters have came out to defend the BV and BL papers.

Dave, In BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs. Does he mean this literally?

R Mackey seems to be saying he doesn't mean this to apply to WTC1 literally.

What do you think?

This is from Bazant's papers, which I suggest you re-read (I forget which one, but it won't hurt you to re-read them all).

That is in BL and I suggest all of you who wish to participate reread it carefully. You'd save me some time if you do.

[bio]

You're changing your story now, are you? You were claiming that the top block was smashed into rubble; now you're saying that 'a big part' was smashed into rubble, and that you only saw the first two seconds. At the end of that two seconds, there was still a large part of the upper block intact, and you don't know what happened to it after that because you couldn't see it. So your observation - now you've admitted to what you actually observed, rather than what you initially claimed you observed - is in fact completely consistent with an initial limited amount of crush-up, followed by primarily crush-down.

(...)

A big part of the upper block was smashed into rubble for sure, then comes the dust cloud. What is rational to assume?
- that the rest of the upper block stayed intact and smashed the block underneath it.
- that the rest of the upper block was destroyed, too.

[bio]

I'm very glad other posters have came out to defend the BV and BL papers.

Dave, In BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs. Does he mean this literally?

R Mackey seems to be saying he doesn't mean this to apply to WTC1 literally.

What do you think?



That is in BL and I suggest all of you who wish to participate reread it carefully. You'd save me some time if you do.

I really support your inputs here. I want to know eventually, what the official collapse theory is about.

[Major_Tom]

Myriad, when Bazant makes the following statement, what does he mean:

"So it must be concluded that the simplifying hypothesis of
one-way crushing (i.e., of absence of simultaneous crush-up),
made in the original paper, was perfectly justified and caused
only an imperceptible difference in the results. The crush-up
simultaneous with the crush down is found to have advanced
into the overlying story by only 37 mm for the North Tower
and 26 mm for the South Tower. This means that the initial
crush-up phase terminates when the axial displacement of
columns is only about 10 times larger than their maximum
elastic deformation. Hence, simplifying the analysis by neglecting
the initial two-way crushing phase was correct and
accurate."

Is he applying this to WTC1, or to just a hypothetical extreme case?

[DavidJames]

I'm very glad other posters have came out to defend the BV and BL papers.

Dave, In BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs. Does he mean this literally?

R Mackey seems to be saying he doesn't mean this to apply to WTC1 literally.

What do you think?



That is in BL and I suggest all of you who wish to participate reread it carefully. You'd save me some time if you do.Why the obsession with Bazant? It was written within a few days doesn't represent a full analysis, Why not critique the NIST report?

[Dave Rogers]

Dave, In BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs. Does he mean this literally?

Bazant showed that initial crush-up would arrest very quickly, and that in effect the upper block would ride down on the intervening rubble block as it destroyed the lower structure. This is for the specific case of a perfectly level collapse with axial column-on-column impacts of a previously undamaged structure, which is the limiting case Bazant used to determine whether it was possible for the structure to resist collapse.

R Mackey seems to be saying he doesn't mean this to apply to WTC1 literally.

What do you think?

That's correct. As everyone keeps pointing out ad nauseam, Bazant is considering the limiting hypothetical case in which the structure is best able to resist collapse, and finding that it cannot.

A big part of the upper block was smashed into rubble for sure, then comes the dust cloud. What is rational to assume?
- that the rest of the upper block stayed intact and smashed the block underneath it.
- that the rest of the upper block was destroyed, too.

Neither. Without some kind of modelling the only rational assumption would be that we don't know whether the crush-up of the upper block continued, and anything more would be a guess. Since the only case that's been analysed indicates that crush-up is expected to arrest, then it's reasonable to assume that that was the case in reality.

Let me point out, though, that your two alternatives are highly misleading. The two possible assumptions are in fact:
- that the rest of the upper block stayed intact and smashed the block underneath it.
- that the rest of the upper block was destroyedsmashed to rubble, too, which was then able to smash the block underneath it.

I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest that the upper block ceased to exist and that the rubble couldn't have destroyed the lower structure, but it's best to clear these things up in advance.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Is he applying this to WTC1, or to just a hypothetical extreme case?

Since he doesn't account for the extensive damage to the structure preceding the collapse, it's obvious that this is a hypothetical case, isn't it?

Dave

[R.Mackey]

Why the obsession with Bazant? It was written within a few months doesn't represent a full analysis, Why not critique the NIST report?

It's much worse than that. Bazant and Le Zhou was written within 48 HOURS of the incident.

I talked about this in my discussions on Hardfire. Basically, Bazant and Le Zhou present a simplified model to illustrate certain features and phenomena relative to the actual events. The Truthers, casting about in desperation for a windmill to tilt at, seize not upon the phenomena nor on providing an alternate conclusion, but instead bitch about the model.

We know the model isn't precise. That's the whole point.

It's like watching reviewers in another country critique Shakespeare despite not understanding the language, going off what they get from the Google translator. The Truthers simply do not understand what they're talking about, and wind up criticising their own misapprehensions. That, plus being totally ignorant of the many other journal papers on the subject. Is it any wonder there's no point talking to them?

I also don't think the simple model is a perfect representation of reality. In fact, going back to Hardfire, I presented my own model (a cartoon, really, but it could be expanded on) of the collapse initiation and progression. It's in these slides (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Rm_hardfire_szamboti_ann.pdf). Reading this, the Truthers will probably crow that I've "refuted" or I "discount" Dr. Bazant, but of course that's not true at all.

[Dave Rogers]

It's much worse than that. Bazant and Le was written within 48 HOURS of the incident.

Don't you mean Bazant and Zhou?

Dave

[R.Mackey]

Oops. You are correct. Fixing now...

Too many acronyms!

ETA: I wonder what Major_Tom meant by "BL" then? There is no relevant article with only Dr. Bazant and Jia-Liang Le. I just assumed he meant Bazant & Zhou.

[bio]

Bazant showed that initial crush-up would arrest very quickly, and that in effect the upper block would ride down on the intervening rubble block as it destroyed the lower structure. (...)

Since the only case that's been analysed indicates that crush-up is expected to arrest, then it's reasonable to assume that that was the case in reality.


okay, I understand your statement so, that the rest of the intact upper block surfed down the tower.


Let me point out, though, that your two alternatives are highly misleading. The two possible assumptions are in fact:
- that the rest of the upper block stayed intact and smashed the block underneath it.
- that the rest of the upper block was destroyedsmashed to rubble, too, which was then able to smash the block underneath it.

I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest that the upper block ceased to exist and that the rubble couldn't have destroyed the lower structure, but it's best to clear these things up in advance.

Dave

Why you revise your statement above? Are you claiming that, the rest of the upper block was destroyed into rubble, but was nevertheless able to smash the block underneath it? If yes, then the question:

what do you / bazant mean with ...

""So it must be concluded that the simplifying hypothesis of
one-way crushing (i.e., of absence of simultaneous crush-up),
made in the original paper, was perfectly justified and caused
only an imperceptible difference in the results. The crush-up
simultaneous with the crush down is found to have advanced
into the overlying story by only 37 mm for the North Tower
and 26 mm for the South Tower. This means that the initial
crush-up phase terminates when the axial displacement of
columns is only about 10 times larger than their maximum
elastic deformation. Hence, simplifying the analysis by neglecting
the initial two-way crushing phase was correct and
accurate."

Perhaps there were two crush-ups?

The first crush-up of the upper section at the beginning of collapse, then the rubble of the upper block destroyed the block underneath it, then the second crush-up destroyed the rubble of the upper block? :confused::rolleyes:

[bio]

It's much worse than that. Bazant and Le Zhou was written within 48 HOURS of the incident.

I talked about this in my discussions on Hardfire. Basically, Bazant and Le Zhou present a simplified model to illustrate certain features and phenomena relative to the actual events. The Truthers, casting about in desperation for a windmill to tilt at, seize not upon the phenomena nor on providing an alternate conclusion, but instead bitch about the model.

We know the model isn't precise. That's the whole point.

It's like watching reviewers in another country critique Shakespeare despite not understanding the language, going off what they get from the Google translator. The Truthers simply do not understand what they're talking about, and wind up criticising their own misapprehensions. That, plus being totally ignorant of the many other journal papers on the subject. Is it any wonder there's no point talking to them?

I also don't think the simple model is a perfect representation of reality. In fact, going back to Hardfire, I presented my own model (a cartoon, really, but it could be expanded on) of the collapse initiation and progression. It's in these slides (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Rm_hardfire_szamboti_ann.pdf). Reading this, the Truthers will probably crow that I've "refuted" or I "discount" Dr. Bazant, but of course that's not true at all.

Please answer the straight forward questions of Major_Tom.
It would be interesting.

[Newtons Bit]

Please answer the straight forward questions of Major_Tom.
It would be interesting.

Why? I already did. He ignored the responses.

[Myriad]

Myriad, when Bazant makes the following statement, what does he mean:

"So it must be concluded that the simplifying hypothesis of
one-way crushing (i.e., of absence of simultaneous crush-up),
made in the original paper, was perfectly justified and caused
only an imperceptible difference in the results. The crush-up
simultaneous with the crush down is found to have advanced
into the overlying story by only 37 mm for the North Tower
and 26 mm for the South Tower. This means that the initial
crush-up phase terminates when the axial displacement of
columns is only about 10 times larger than their maximum
elastic deformation. Hence, simplifying the analysis by neglecting
the initial two-way crushing phase was correct and
accurate."


I'm pretty sure he means that it must be concluded that the simplifying hypothesis of one-way crushing (i.e., of absence of simultaneous crush-up), made in the original paper, was perfectly justified and caused only an imperceptible difference in the results. This, he explains, is because the crush-up simultaneous with the crush down is found to have advanced into the overlying story by only 37 mm for the North Tower and 26 mm for the South Tower. Which, he goes on to explain, means that the initial crush-up phase terminates when the axial displacement of columns is only about 10 times larger than their maximum elastic deformation. Hence, he concludes, simplifying the analysis by neglecting the initial two-way crushing phase was correct and accurate.

Is he applying this to WTC1, or to just a hypothetical extreme case?


He is applying it to his model of a WTC tower, which incorporates best-case assumptions for the possibility of collapse arrest. That he is analyzing a model is indicated by the methodology used -- which is performing mathematics on the model, as opposed to, say, running up and down the tower with a tape measure as it was collapsing.

In other words, complete crush-down preceding significant crush-up is not an arbitrary assumption imposed on the best-case model to simplify the calculations, it is also a result derivable from analysis of the best-case model.

If it could be shown with actual evidence that crush-down did not in fact precede crush-up in the real event, all that would mean is that the real case was far worse, in terms of the likelihood of collapse arrest, than the assumed best case. (Which we already knew, because for most of the collapse, the load sheared floors from the columns instead of buckling the columns, reducing the actual amount of energy absorbed in inelastic strain to only a small fraction of the maximum theoretically possible).

Again: if your goal is to show that there should have been a better than best-case outcome, showing that there was a worse than best-case event won't get you there, or even move you in the right direction. You're basically pushing on a rope here.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[bio]

(...)

If it could be shown with actual evidence that crush-down did not in fact precede crush-up in the real event, all that would mean is that the real case was far worse, in terms of the likelihood of collapse arrest, than the assumed best case. (...)

See video evidence of WTC-1 collapse, crush up precedes crush down in the first seconds. Why continued crush up would not had lead to collapse arrest?

[femr2]

I don't really see the point of spending too much time on Bazant et al. It is what it is. It was always a limiting case, not intended to be used as a direct description of the actual behaviour, and where is is used in direct context of describing the actual motion of WTC 1/2 it's, in all fairness, being mis-applied.

I do see fair reason to produce a model which does apply directly to observable mechanisms, and can be applied directly to actual behaviour.

I don't see any argument that the primary destructive mechanism involved the separated *crush fronts* as described, and a model which takes account of energy requirements to do so is, if even just for academic purposes, worth progressing.

Development of the model which also predicts the observed terminal/linear velocity of the *crush fronts* would also be useful.

Determining the requirements for initiation of the process, such that it is self-sustaining, will also provide a lot of information about the behaviour during initiation, some of which cannot be seen visually.

Instead of arguing about Bazant et al, why not develop the equations of motion which directly apply to *ROOSD*, which should, for WTC 1, result in around a 14.5s timing to ground, including propogation through the mechanical floor regions.

[Newtons Bit]

I don't really see the point of spending too much time on Bazant et al. It is what it is. It was always a limiting case, not intended to be used as a direct description of the actual behaviour, and where is is used in direct context of describing the actual motion of WTC 1/2 it's, in all fairness, being mis-applied.

Ok.

I do see fair reason to produce a model which does apply directly to observable mechanisms, and can be applied directly to actual behaviour.

Why?

Development of the model which also predicts the observed terminal/linear velocity of the *crush fronts* would also be useful.

Why?

Determining the requirements for initiation of the process, such that it is self-sustaining, will also provide a lot of information about the behaviour during initiation, some of which cannot be seen visually.

How?

Instead of arguing about Bazant et al, why not develop the equations of motion which directly apply to *ROOSD*, which should, for WTC 1, result in around a 14.5s timing to ground, including propogation through the mechanical floor regions.

Good luck.

[Major_Tom]

A word of advice for all posters:

The papers Bazant & Zhao and Bazant & Verdure present different arguments with different purposes.

BZ describes a best case scenario for survival.

BV derives actual equations of motion which are intended to be applicable actual buildings, the most famous case being WTC1.

If you keep mixing the concept "best case scenario for survival" with the actual equations of motion derived in BV intended to describe the movement of actual buildings, you will argue yourselves into a corner.


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

Myriad, in BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs. Does he mean this literally?

[Dave Rogers]

Why you revise your statement above? Are you claiming that, the rest of the upper block was destroyed into rubble, but was nevertheless able to smash the block underneath it?

No, nor would anyone honestly read that sense into what I said. I'm pointing out that, even if your unsubstantiated assumption were true in that the upper block was pulverised first, the rubble would still have been available to destroy the lower structure, in that a very large mass of falling debris would still have been present which the lower structure did not have the structural capacity to arrest.

Perhaps there were two crush-ups?

The first crush-up of the upper section at the beginning of collapse, then the rubble of the upper block destroyed the block underneath it, then the second crush-up destroyed the rubble of the upper block? :confused::rolleyes:

Yes, that's exactly what Bazant's case predicted. However, the first crush-up was small enough not to make any significant difference to the overall result. I see Myriad's also rephrased that for you; do you need a third synonymous paragraph or will two be enough?

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

A word of advice for all posters:

The papers Bazant & Zhao and Bazant & Verdure present different arguments with different purposes.

BZ describes a best case scenario for survival.

BV derives actual equations of motion which are intended to be applicable actual buildings, the most famous case being WTC1.

If you keep mixing the concept "best case scenario for survival" with the actual equations of motion derived in BV intended to describe the movement of actual buildings, you will argue yourselves into a corner.

Another cautionary word, though: Bazant and Verdure's model is a simplified one-dimensional homogeneous approximation to the behaviour of a real building, which is intended to reproduce gross features of collapse behaviour. Any attempt to apply it to the detailed features of collapses of specific, three-dimensional, inhomogeneous and (most importantly) already locally damaged buildings is absolutely certain to fail.

Having said that, would you like to repeat your enquiry about the model's predictions as applied to the detailed features of the collapse of a specific, three-dimensional, inhomogeneous and already locally damaged building, if you think it's a topic worth pursuing?

Dave

ETA: And also, since you've stressed the importance of not confusing Bazant & Zhou with Bazant & Verdure, could you please clarify which one you're referring to as BL?

[Myriad]

Myriad, in BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs.


Dr. Bazant provided a rigorous explanation of that, in the analysis just before he stated the conclusion resulting from that analysis. The conclusion was: "So it must be concluded that the simplifying hypothesis of one-way crushing (i.e., of absence of simultaneous crush-up), made in the original paper, was perfectly justified and caused only an imperceptible difference in the results." If you read the part before that conclusion, you'll see the reasoning leading to that conclusion.

Does he mean this literally?


He is applying it to his model of a WTC tower, which incorporates best-case assumptions for the possibility of collapse arrest. That he is analyzing a model is indicated by the methodology used -- which is performing mathematics on the model, as opposed to, say, running up and down the tower with a tape measure as it was collapsing.

In other words, complete crush-down preceding significant crush-up is not an arbitrary assumption imposed on the best-case model to simplify the calculations, it is also a result derivable from analysis of the best-case model.

If it could be shown with actual evidence that crush-down did not in fact precede crush-up in the real event, all that would mean is that the real case was far worse, in terms of the likelihood of collapse arrest, than the assumed best case. (Which we already knew, because for most of the collapse, the load sheared floors from the columns instead of buckling the columns, reducing the actual amount of energy absorbed in inelastic strain to only a small fraction of the maximum theoretically possible).

Again: if your goal is to show that there should have been a better than best-case outcome, showing that there was a worse than best-case event won't get you there, or even move you in the right direction. You're basically pushing on a rope here.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Major_Tom]

BL is Bazant and Le, at totally different paper. We are dealing with 3 different papers, Bazat and Zhao (BZ), Bazant and Verdure (BV) and Bazant and Le (BL).

My beef is with BV and BL, in which crush up and crush down equations of motion are derived and justified.

Another cautionary word, though: Bazant and Verdure's model is a simplified one-dimensional homogeneous approximation to the behaviour of a real building, which is intended to reproduce gross features of collapse behaviour.

Let's ask B and V.

From the introduction:

"attention will be focused on the progressive collapse,
triggered in the WTC by fire and previously experienced
in many tall buildings as a result of earthquake or explosions
(including terrorist attack). A simplified one-dimensional analytical
solution of the collapse front propagation will be presented. It
will be shown how this solution can be used to determine the
energy absorption capability of individual stories if the motion
history is precisely recorded. Because of the shroud of dust and
smoke, these histories can be identified from the videos of the
collapsing WTC towers only for the first few seconds of collapse,
and so little can be learned in this regard from that collapse.
However, monitoring of tall building demolitions, which represent
one kind of progressive collapse, could provide such
histories. Development of a simple theory amenable to inverse
analysis of these histories is the key. It would permit extracting
valuable information on the energy absorption capability of various
types of structural systems in various collapse modes, and is,
therefore, the main objective of this paper."

I think they state it clearly.

The product of the paper, which are the equations of motion, is equation 12 (crush-down) and equation 17 (crush-up).

Current knowledge of features of the WTC1 collapse show that BV cannot be applied to WTC1. In fact, BV has nothing to do with WTC1 at all.

Why? Because the 4 simplifying assumptions used to derive the equations contradict what we now know about the collapse mechanics.

[bio]

(...) even if your unsubstantiated assumption were true in that the upper block was pulverised first, the rubble would still have been available to destroy the lower structure, in that a very large mass of falling debris would still have been present which the lower structure did not have the structural capacity to arrest.

(...)

I am really not an expert, but my common sense says that:

When the upper block is smashed by the intact block underneath, then the upper block had lost its destructive energy.

[Major_Tom]

Once again:

"A simplified one-dimensional analytical
solution of the collapse front propagation will be presented. It
will be shown how this solution can be used to determine the
energy absorption capability of individual stories if the motion
history is precisely recorded. Because of the shroud of dust and
smoke, these histories can be identified from the videos of the
collapsing WTC towers only for the first few seconds of collapse,
and so little can be learned in this regard from that collapse."

you see, he would like to apply it to the WTC1 if the motion history was precisely recorded. That was his intention as he states, but he cannot because of all the dust and smoke.

The intention of these equations is to map the actual propagation front, just as he states.

Myriad, please show where Dr Bazant intends the equations to be used only as a best case scenario, rather than to map the actual collapse front of the actual building.

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

I watched Dr Benson apply it to the first few seconds of data over many, many posts. He tries to match real data of the real building to the equations, not some "best case scenario".

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

I asked: Myriad, in BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs.

Myriad answers: Dr. Bazant provided a rigorous explanation of that, in the analysis just before he stated the conclusion resulting from that analysis. The conclusion was: "So it must be concluded that the simplifying hypothesis of one-way crushing (i.e., of absence of simultaneous crush-up), made in the original paper, was perfectly justified and caused only an imperceptible difference in the results." If you read the part before that conclusion, you'll see the reasoning leading to that conclusion.

That is good advice. Did you do it? That is the part I wanted you to answer. Explain the reasoning behind why he believes significant crush up doesn't occur. (Hint; It has something to do with the columns in the upper block)

[bio]

(...)
He is applying it to his model of a WTC tower, which incorporates best-case assumptions for the possibility of collapse arrest. That he is analyzing a model is indicated by the methodology used -- which is performing mathematics on the model, as opposed to, say, running up and down the tower with a tape measure as it was collapsing.

In other words, complete crush-down preceding significant crush-up is not an arbitrary assumption imposed on the best-case model to simplify the calculations, it is also a result derivable from analysis of the best-case model.

If it could be shown with actual evidence that crush-down did not in fact precede crush-up in the real event, all that would mean is that the real case was far worse, in terms of the likelihood of collapse arrest, than the assumed best case. (Which we already knew, because for most of the collapse, the load sheared floors from the columns instead of buckling the columns, reducing the actual amount of energy absorbed in inelastic strain to only a small fraction of the maximum theoretically possible).

Again: if your goal is to show that there should have been a better than best-case outcome, showing that there was a worse than best-case event won't get you there, or even move you in the right direction. You're basically pushing on a rope here.

Respectfully,
Myriad

What do you mean with "best case"?

See video evidence of WTC-1 collapse, crush up precedes crush down in the first seconds. Why continued crush up would not had lead to collapse arrest?

[Newtons Bit]

Hey, Major_Tom learned what Bazant was talking about when he said "paradigm", amazing!

[DavidJames]

I am really not an expert, but my common sense says that:...Most people, when dealing with technical areas, would end the sentence at the comma, or follow it with"...,so I won't make an ass of myself".

CTists are unable to do that.

[Myriad]

Myriad, please show where Dr Bazant intends the equations to be used only as a best case scenario, rather than to map the actual collapse front of the actual building.


Here y'go:

Abstract: This paper presents a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of the towers of World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001. The analysis shows that if prolonged heating caused the majority of columns of a single floor to lose their load carrying capacity, the whole tower was doomed. The structural resistance is found to be an order of magnitude less than necessary for survival, even though the most optimistic simplifying assumptions are introduced. [emphasis added]

Clever of Bazant, wasn't it, to hide his intentions in the abstract. I mean, who reads those, right? :rolleyes:

Respectfully,
Myriad

[DGM]

I am really not an expert, but my common sense says that:

When the upper block is smashed by the intact block underneath, then the upper block had lost its destructive energy.

What do you figure happened to the mass of the upper block? That is after all the "destructive" part (whether it's intact or not)

[Major_Tom]

Myriad, you are aware of the difference between BZ and BV?

Here is the abstract from the BZ paper:

Abstract: This paper presents a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of the towers of World Trade Center in New York
on September 11, 2001. The analysis shows that if prolonged heating caused the majority of columns of a single floor to lose their load
carrying capacity, the whole tower was doomed.

It is identical to your quote so I assume you are quoting from BZ?

Is this true?

Like I said, if you keep mixing BV and BZ you will argue yourself into a corner.

Please read the introduction in BV instead.

[bio]

What do you figure happened to the mass of the upper block? That is after all the "destructive" part (whether it's intact or not)

see the video evidence of wtc-1, the upper block was destroyed to a big part the first seconds, before the block underneath was affected at all.

[sheeplesnshills]

See video evidence of WTC-1 collapse, crush up precedes crush down in the first seconds. Why continued crush up would not had lead to collapse arrest?

Why would it? If it crushes up it adds rubble on the top of the remaining building until such time as the floor supports would fail and then the building would crush down.

I happen to think that it crushed up and down after the first half second or so but it really doesn't matter. Its the initiation event that counts.

[DGM]

see the video evidence of wtc-1, the upper block was destroyed to a big part the first seconds, before the block underneath was affected at all.
Are you claiming this mass disappeared? If not, what makes you think the "rubble" from the top block would be less destructive then the intact structure?

I believe it would be more because it would be denser (more compact mass).

[alienentity]

see the video evidence of wtc-1, the upper block was destroyed to a big part the first seconds, before the block underneath was affected at all.

The fact that you're wrong doesn't make you right, y'know. It just makes you wrong. Your opinions do not change reality.

AzTGMQcXP1Q

[tsig]

Bazant's model is a limiting case representing the most favorable assumptions for collapse arrest. Among those assumptions is that all the weight of the falling mass -- even the already crushed and broken rubble -- somehow lands squarely on columns.

In that model, meaning under those assumptions, crush-down precedes crush-up. Bazant shows how and why.

The extent to which crush-down did not precede crush-up in the actual collapse indicates only that those favorable assumptions for collapse arrest were not true, so collapse arrest was even more impossible.

Try this analogy, Major Tom: suppose you're skydiving and your chute fails to open. Bazant, who happens to be looking on, quickly assesses the situation and says, "His best chance to survive is if he lands on that giant pile of mattresses over there. But even then, my calculations say the landing will kill him." You respond (since you have nothing better to do whilst plummeting earthward), "Ha! I'm landing nowhere near those mattresses! In fact, I'm heading right for that Upright Steel Spikes Inc. storage yard 1000 feet west instead. You believe I'm going to land on the mattresses but the facts contradict you. So your prediction that I'm going to die has no validity!

At that point Bazant rightly figures that there's no point in saying anything further. Why bother to argue with someone who thinks that proving a situation is worse than the best-case scenario somehow means that one should expect better than the best-case outcome?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Worst case scenario? More made up official lies.:rolleyes:

Yes you proved the column will buckle when loaded to 100 lbs but what happens if I load it to 500 lbs, can't answer that can you dubunker?:boggled:

[bio]

Why would it? If it crushes up it adds rubble on the top of the remaining building until such time as the floor supports would fail and then the building would crush down.

I happen to think that it crushed up and down after the first half second or so but it really doesn't matter. Its the initiation event that counts.

There is a difference whether the mass falls down on or just lies on something: As the upper block fell down on the block underneath and was smashed for a big part, then this is evidence for me, that it lost its destructive energy. Especially when we take into account, that the block underneath stayed intact the first seconds.

[beachnut]

I am really not an expert, but my common sense says that:

When the upper block is smashed by the intact block underneath, then the upper block had lost its destructive energy.
Did you help Major Tom with his conclusions? You support your claim with solid evidence. Major Tom needs support like this.

There is a difference whether the mass falls down on or just lies on something: As the upper block fell down on the block underneath and was smashed for a big part, then this is evidence for me, that it lost its destructive energy. Especially when we take into account, that the block underneath stayed intact the first seconds.
It did not stop, it made the next section fail, and then with more mass the next section, all the way to the ground. A floor in the WTC can not hold the mass that fell from above it on 911. A floor only holds so much weight and fails, even if you just place it softly on the floor. How many pounds can your imaginary never fail WTC floor hold?

Real structural engineers understand the collapse of the WTC. Like the chief structural engineer of the WTC who calls the 911 truth movement nonsense. I suggest you find some engineers who are not in 911 truth and get their advice. Oops, you are getting that but ignoring it, right here.

8 years; you could have had a PhD in engineering structures, and you would see Major Tom's work as nonsense and not be supporting his work with your common sense nonsense.

[Major_Tom]

Myriad, in your last post, when asked a question about BL, you quoted an abstract from the wrong paper.

Once again: Myriad, please show where Dr Bazant intends the equations to be used only as a best case scenario, rather than to map the actual collapse front of the actual building.

Remember he gives the equations in BV. The intention of BV is different than that of BZ, as anyone can see by reading the introduction of the correct paper.

Can you answer this without citing the wrong paper?

[bio]

Did you help Major Tom with his conclusions? You support your claim with solid evidence. Major Tom needs support like this.


It did not stop, it made the next section fail, and then with more mass the next section, all the way to the ground. A floor in the WTC can not hold the mass that fell from above it on 911. A floor only holds so much weight and fails, even if you just place it softly on the floor. How many pounds can your imaginary never fail WTC floor hold?

(...)

no - I cannot see such a "pancaking" of floors, the mass of the towers were exploding to the outside. There was no "mass of rubble", where the towers stood, everything was distributed at Ground Zero. We can see that on the remaining core and perimeter columns. Furthermore we can see that, by the survivors, who survived in the fourth floor of WTC 1.

Jay Jonas is actually inside the North Tower, on its fourth floor. Seconds before the collapse he feels “a tremendous vibration and shaking; the floor began waving.”
Providence Journal, 9/11/2002

I just try to find out, what the official collapse explanation is. I do not understand, what Major_Tom is writing about, but his inputs help me a lot.

[beachnut]

no - I cannot see such a "pancaking" of floors, the mass of the towers were exploding to the outside. There was no "mass of rubble", where the towers stood, everything was distributed at Ground Zero. We can see that on the remaining core and perimeter columns. Furthermore we can see that, by the survivors, who survived in the fourth floor of WTC 1.

Jay Jonas is actually inside the North Tower, on its fourth floor. Seconds before the collapse he feels “a tremendous vibration and shaking; the floor began waving.”
Providence Journal, 9/11/2002

I just try to find out, what the official collapse explanation is. I do not understand, what Major_Tom is writing about, but his inputs help me a lot.

When the floors fail the shell sections are not supported and they fall off. It has been 8 years and you don't understand the construction of the WTC? What have you been studying, lies, hearsay, and fantasy?

The WTC is a system of core, floors and shell, they formed a very strong structure. The WTC was not designed for 470 and 590 mph aircraft impact, it was designed for a 180 mph impact which would survive.

Major Tom is only trying to make a paper so he can say, " see, it could be CD". He cares less about who died on 911 but more about his fantasy conspiracy theory about CD, thermite or some other crazy idea of how the WTC fell and some inside job by the US government.

My parents sent me to engineering school and the USAF to engineering grad school, it helps me see quickly the BS Major Tom's paper is. Anyone with a grade school education can figure it out also, my training is not needed to call BS on Major Tom's work; why can't you figure it out?

What would Leslie Robertson say?

[R.Mackey]

Myriad, in your last post, when asked a question about BL, you quoted an abstract from the wrong paper. [...]
Can you answer this without citing the wrong paper?

Seeing as how there is no paper by Bazant and Le that is relevant here, and you've ignored requests to clarify what you mean, I think you should cool it a bit.

Do you mean Bazant, Le, Greening, and Benson (2008), sometimes known as BLGB? Or are you even more confused than we thought?

[Gaspode]

Discussion on plane impacts split to new thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=175827).

[Myriad]

Myriad, in your last post, when asked a question about BL, you quoted an abstract from the wrong paper.

Once again: Myriad, please show where Dr Bazant intends the equations to be used only as a best case scenario, rather than to map the actual collapse front of the actual building.

Remember he gives the equations in BV. The intention of BV is different than that of BZ, as anyone can see by reading the introduction of the correct paper.

Can you answer this without citing the wrong paper?


I cited the paper that contains the answer to the question you asked regarding whether Bazant intended the assumptions made in his collapse model of the WTC towers to represent a limiting best (most favorable to collapse arrest) case. In the paper in which he introduced that model and first applied it to the WTC collapses, he clearly stated that it was (using the phrase "most optimistic.") That paper is cited in "BV" so presumably Bazant still stands by its claims; nor does he need to repeat that information in "BV," having cited it.

What is this bizarre game you're playing with "answer my question using only the paper I tell you to?" Can I play too? What's the capital of Michigan, and please back up your answer using only passages from Shakespeare's prime numbered sonnets. Thanks!

Respectfully,
Myriad

ETA: Actually there's a misstatement in the above that I'll gladly own up to. I did not actually cite the paper containing the answer, I merely quoted the answer itself from the paper. However, since you had no difficulty discerning which paper I was quoting from, no harm done I trust.

[Dave Rogers]

I am really not an expert, but my common sense says that:

When the upper block is smashed by the intact block underneath, then the upper block had lost its destructive energy.

Your common sense is misleading you. The destructive energy of the upper block is its kinetic energy, which is its mass multiplied by half the square of its energy. If it's smashed into rubble, neither its mass nor its velocity suddenly vanishes; in fact, as the rubble falls, its velocity is added to by the action of gravity.

And, in fact, this deduction of yours indicates that you haven't been following any of the discussion in this thread. Major Tom is arguing that the upper block was largely destroyed, but that the rubble from it continued to fall on the floors between the inner and outer tubes of supports; the floors were smashed by the rubble, breaking the connections between core and perimeter columns; the perimeter columns peeled outwards due to lack of support, and the remaining core columns were unable to stand unsupported by the perimeter tube. In other words, Major Tom understands that the top block didn't 'lose its destructive energy' as a result of crush-up. Maybe he could explain it to you, rather than wasting time nit-picking on whether a simplified analytical approximation accurately reproduces the detailed behaviour seen in collapse.

Dave

[Major_Tom]

Just so everyone knows, BV and BL are......

BV:

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World
Trade Center and Building Demolitions
Zdenfk P. Bažant, F.ASCE; and Mathieu Verdure
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf


BL:

Bazant & Le
Closure to "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions"
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25%20WTC%20Discussions%20Replies.pdf


bio, I agree but the resultant debris could now be trapped within the intact perimeter structure. It could gather in the OOS regions by following the path of least resistance. This debris may be trapped between core and perimeter with no where to go but down through the OOS.

The paper suggests that continued OOS destruction may be a natural process, though it is yet to be tested mathematically. This process, though natural, is not a debunking of CD. From the CD point of view, it is a way to achieve complete CD by using minimal explosives.

Dave Rogers explained it well in his first post on page 1 when he said:

"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."
...............................................

A good discussion of BV and BL is possible in view of the study presented in the OP, for there is much to say.

Unfortunately, I cannot do that here because most every poster who is defending BV has shown they have no capacity to distinguish between the argument in BZ and BV (only Dave has shown he may understand the difference). Consider the last post by Myriad. If that makes sense to you, I'm speechless.

I didn't realize that such a misunderstanding is so widespread among people who post here regularly. The barrier created by those who imagine that the BV argument is just a continuation of the BZ argument appears way too high to overcome, though discovering this barrier has been useful for me and, I hope, for you too.

If there are a few of you who can actually distinguish between the two arguments, please let me know and I can show you how BV and BL are proven wrong by the study.

Of not, the few readers that do understand the difference in the two arguments must be just as amazed as I am. Your comments can tell them much more about your own level of understanding than it does about the study.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Just to verify, do you really believe the following comments are true?

R Mackey: "Personally, I like how he seems to think Bazant and Le (2002) is supposed to be an accurate description of the collapse rather than a limiting case, or that he thinks that plus Bazant and Verdure (2006) cover the entire scope of the literature."

You mean Bazant and Zhao.

Myriad: "Bazant's model is a limiting case representing the most favorable assumptions for collapse arrest."

Different papers, different arguments. That was pointed out a few times but he still seems to believe it is true.

David James: "It was written within a few days doesn't represent a full analysis, Why not critique the NIST report?"

Wrong paper. These are from 2007-2008 and still believed to this day.


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

I asked: R Mackey seems to be saying he doesn't mean this to apply to WTC1 literally.

What do you think?

To which Dave answered:
"That's correct. As everyone keeps pointing out ad nauseam, Bazant is considering the limiting hypothetical case in which the structure is best able to resist collapse, and finding that it cannot."


That is the center of our disagreement. He actually does believe this literally, that crush down happens before crush up. This is pretty clear in the papers themselves (as long as you don't confuse their purpose and intent with BZ), but it became much clearer through long conversations with David Benson, who communicates with Dr Bazant.

You think I'm joking? I wish I was.

One of my favorite posters on another forum summed it up thus:

"I've said it before, it's worth saying again. I'm not at all confused where the model ends and reality begins, but I'm not so sure about the author. There is acknowledgement that the real affair was quite different in various ways, but then there's the insistence that significant early crush-up could not occur when it sure as hell looks like it did. Almost certainly did. I don't understand how that did not merit even a mention; perhaps he doesn't even know! It strongly suggests the author is wedded to theory such that the lines between theory and reality are blurred. Incredible intellect, without a doubt, wish I had a piece of that, but... It really becomes academic to the point of 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' - if there were angels, the argument might be worth double-checking!"

As stated in the (correct) papers in question, BV equs 12 and 17 are meant to be taken quite literally according to the author himself, as long as 4 simplifying assumptions are satisfied. Dr Bazant truly believes his 1-D model can be used to to measure the actual trajectory of the crush front for WTC1 and that the 4 simplifying assumptions apply to WTC1, including a slight lean.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

One of the few readers that understands what I am saying may ask: Major_Tom, why do you bother trying to explain something that most of these guys will never understand?

Now that is a good question. People from other forums are following this discussion, people who have shown the capacity to follow the argument. This discussion may help them clarify what the most common misconceptions are within the Bazant papers. By seeing common mistakes repeated, people can get a better sense of where the "debate" stands at present.

[Myriad]

Consider the last post by Myriad. If that makes sense to you, I'm speechless.


Just out of curiosity, did anyone else find my last post difficult to understand, or lacking sense in some other way?

(Not that I have any desire to render Major_Tom speechless, of course...)

Respectfully,
Myriad

PS: I'm fairly certain Daver Rogers's last post should read: "Your common sense is misleading you. The destructive energy of the upper block is its kinetic energy, which is its mass multiplied by half the square of its energy velocity. If it's smashed into rubble, neither its mass nor its velocity suddenly vanishes; in fact, as the rubble falls, its velocity is added to by the action of gravity."

[Newtons Bit]

Just out of curiosity, did anyone else find my last post difficult to understand, or lacking sense in some other way?

It's pretty much the same thing we've been saying in this thread for awhile now. Major_Tom needs to act dumb so he can pretend that his latest appeal to perfection is still somehow relevant.

[ProBonoShill]

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:confused:



If it's such a distraction then why do you yourself mention it?


911 truth makes up delusional conclusions and tries to back in evidence.

:cool:

[dafydd]

Ground control has lost touch with Major Tom.

[beachnut]

Ground control has lost touch with Major Tom.
Lost in space after falling faster than free-fall into the pit of ignorance known as 911 truth. Ground control to M...

[sheeplesnshills]

There is a difference whether the mass falls down on or just lies on something: As the upper block fell down on the block underneath and was smashed for a big part, then this is evidence for me, that it lost its destructive energy. Especially when we take into account, that the block underneath stayed intact the first seconds.

What were the factors of safety on the floor loadings? the weight of only two or three floors would cause the floor below to fail under even a static load let alone a dynamic one. And it would be a very dynamic one with the top section falling to pieces.

[Reactor drone]

bio, I agree but the resultant debris could now be trapped within the intact perimeter structure. It could gather in the OOS regions by following the path of least resistance. This debris may be trapped between core and perimeter with no where to go but down through the OOS.

The paper suggests that continued OOS destruction may be a natural process, though it is yet to be tested mathematically. This process, though natural, is not a debunking of CD. From the CD point of view, it is a way to achieve complete CD by using minimal explosives.

Dave Rogers explained it well in his first post on page 1 when he said:

"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."
...............................................


As stated in the (correct) papers in question, BV equs 12 and 17 are meant to be taken quite literally according to the author himself, as long as 4 simplifying assumptions are satisfied. Dr Bazant truly believes his 1-D model can be used to to measure the actual trajectory of the crush front for WTC1 and that the 4 simplifying assumptions apply to WTC1, including a slight lean.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



So, given that the collapse progression is a natural one and not indicative of CD and that the simplifications and assumptions provide for an analysis of a "scenario most likely to bring about collapse arrest", perhaps you should concentrate on looking for evidence in the collapse initiation.

All you need to do is find a CD method that has no explosive noise, can withstand fires, can be hidden within the building structure, causes the perimeter walls to bends inwards and leaves no traces on the steel.

Good luck with that :)

[TruthersLie]

So, given that the collapse progression is a natural one and not indicative of CD and that the simplifications and assumptions provide for an analysis of a "scenario most likely to bring about collapse arrest", perhaps you should concentrate on looking for evidence in the collapse initiation.

All you need to do is find a CD method that has no explosive noise, can withstand fires, can be hidden within the building structure, causes the perimeter walls to bends inwards and leaves no traces on the steel.

Good luck with that :)

Personally I want him to come back to my simple questions.

Whether his collapse idea is accurate or not, his conclusions are what I am going after, especially when he then said that CD would still work because it would need minimal explosives.

GREAT.

Please explain to me, any explosives which would
1. survive the impact
2. survive the fires (danny J says that at 320C the igniters for CD charges would detonate prematurely and the RDX/HE would lose its ability to explode)
3. Anyone could plant these "minimal explosives" unnoticed
4. How anyone could know the floors that would be impacted.

and a whole list of other questions which arise if we take the invalid conclusions from this paper.

it reminds me of David Chanlders excellent piece were he showed that there was a 2.25 second "near" freefall in WTC7. An excellent piece. That then went completely off the rails in his conclusion.

This OOS collapse model seems to do the same thing. It shows that the collapse progressed in different methods across different areas. But then, instead of taking the good/valid/logical approach, it comes back to, It must have been explosives.

[femr2]

But then, instead of taking the good/valid/logical approach, it comes back to, It must have been explosives.

No, it doesn't.

It simply says that ROOSD does not disprove NOR prove CD or Natural Collapse.

MT has specifically made it clear, on this very thread, the reasoning behind making that point clear.

Why not present some *numbers*, rather attaching your opinion to your personally misunderstood interpretation of possibilities not discounted within the conclusions.

[TruthersLie]

No, it doesn't.

It simply says that ROOSD does not disprove NOR prove CD or Natural Collapse.

MT has specifically made it clear, on this very thread, the reasoning behind making that point clear.

Why not present some *numbers*, rather attaching your opinion to your personally misunderstood interpretation of possibilities not discounted within the conclusions.

1. I'm not an engineer. So any numbers I post would be invalid and probably inaccurate. I try not to comment on things which my education and experience do not provide a relevant background with.

2. He adds in the idea about CD in the conclusions, where CD is not discussed in the entire "body" of the "paper." Why add it in? It also doesn't prove or disprove that godzilla did it, space aliens, or DEW did or didn't do it.

as Major tom states right here

The paper suggests that continued OOS destruction may be a natural process, though it is yet to be tested mathematically. This process, though natural, is not a debunking of CD. From the CD point of view, it is a way to achieve complete CD by using minimal explosives.

it is in there, so MT can try to build the case that instead of the hundreds of tons of explosives, it would only need minimal explosive to bring down just one floor. And once the collapse is started it would go to the ground.

of course it completely destroys AE911 twoofs claims. And other truther claims, so I like it for that principle.

But adding in the bit about CD in the conclusion isn't necessary.

It smacks of desperate pseudo science. I have my theory and now I'm just trying to make my facts and experiments fit my theory...
I want to believe it was the gubmint. I want to believe in explosives, but the evidence isn't there. NIST is correct that explosives would have been on every recording device for MILES, yet there is none. I have tried to use the datamined oral histories and been owned... so I need a way to have the building collapse, but doesn't involve thousands of tons of explosives.... thermite? No. It doesn't cut verticle steel columns horizontally or obliquely... oh wait.
thermite can cut steel that is horizontal. And the outer flanges and connections were steel... so if we can just show that thermite can cut those, we have a possibility.

oh wait, we need the building to collapse though... oh wait... if we use only limited explosives we can make the building collapse one floor... ohhh... i have just built my theory from my conclusion (explosives) backwards to how it was done.

never mind that I am ignoring all of the facts and evidence that show that I am wrong. I'll see if they buy this idea, and then I'll build on it.

[bio]

(...)


bio, I agree but the resultant debris could now be trapped within the intact perimeter structure. It could gather in the OOS regions by following the path of least resistance. This debris may be trapped between core and perimeter with no where to go but down through the OOS.(...)

There are photos in the web of the intact perimeter columns, but I cannot see much debris behind it. There is no stockpile of debris, no piledriver...
What are your "real" evidence, that the debris fell between core and perimeter columns and went down through the OOS?

[femr2]

1. I'm not an engineer. So any numbers I post would be invalid and probably inaccurate. I try not to comment on things which my education and experience do not provide a relevant background with.
Fine, but as I said, the study does not say CD nor not-CD.

2. He adds in the idea about CD in the conclusions, where CD is not discussed in the entire "body" of the "paper." Why add it in? It also doesn't prove or disprove that godzilla did it, space aliens, or DEW did or didn't do it.
First, good that you see that your previous assertion was not correct. Second, as I said, it has already been made clear in this thread why it's included. One reason is to stop the spurious claims by elements such as AE911T that explosives must be on every floor (yada yada yada). It is a study which both *camps* should be able agree upon in terms of the ROOSD mechanism itself, which is an explosiveless process. It is a study presented to both camps. Other folk will argue that the self-sustaining mechanism of ROOSD itself is *impossible* without explosives. Such differing *arguments* was expected.

it is in there, so MT can try to build the case that instead of the hundreds of tons of explosives,
No, that is simply your own personal interpretation.

it would only need minimal explosive to bring down just one floor. And once the collapse is started it would go to the ground.
The exact requirements for initiation have not been included. You think one floor would be enough ? Am aware you don't do numbers, so feel free to ignore. Note, I'm not saying explosives, simply how much mass. Easy to misinterpret, innit.

of course it completely destroys AE911 twoofs claims. And other truther claims, so I like it for that principle.
It certainly clarifies many incorrect assertions made by such groups, which hopefully they will take onboard.

But adding in the bit about CD in the conclusion isn't necessary.
Your opinion is fine, but it's important to understand that various groups are intended to read it, as indicated above.

It smacks of desperate pseudo science. I have my theory and now I'm just trying to make my facts and experiments fit my theory...
Again, no, that is simply your own personal interpretation. There's no need to wander off into desperate pseudo science. You agree with the ROOSD mechanism as far as I can tell, which is based upon observables, and, is very likely to be correct. Hardly desperate pseudo science.

I hope I have clarified a few things for you.

[Dave Rogers]

PS: I'm fairly certain Dave Rogers's last post should read: "Your common sense is misleading you. The destructive energy of the upper block is its kinetic energy, which is its mass multiplied by half the square of its energy velocity. If it's smashed into rubble, neither its mass nor its velocity suddenly vanishes; in fact, as the rubble falls, its velocity is added to by the action of gravity."

Damn. Typing faster than I was thinking. Thanks for picking that up.

Dave

[ProBonoShill]

No, it doesn't.

It simply says that ROOSD does not disprove NOR prove CD or Natural Collapse.

MT has specifically made it clear, on this very thread, the reasoning behind making that point clear.

Why not present some *numbers*, rather attaching your opinion to your personally misunderstood interpretation of possibilities not discounted within the conclusions.

So I'm assuming explosives won't be mentioned in future arguments?

That would be a refreshing change.

[beachnut]

Fine, but as I said, the study does not say CD nor not-CD.


First, good that you see that your previous assertion was not correct. Second, as I said, it has already been made clear in this thread why it's included. One reason is to stop the spurious claims by elements such as AE911T that explosives must be on every floor (yada yada yada). It is a study which both *camps* should be able agree upon in terms of the ROOSD mechanism itself, which is an explosiveless process. It is a study presented to both camps. Other folk will argue that the self-sustaining mechanism of ROOSD itself is *impossible* without explosives. Such differing *arguments* was expected.
... The paper proves no CD with the evidence provided in the paper. The only purpose of the paper is to back in the possibility of CD without evidence. 8 years and you guys can't grasp reality.

At least you have bio who thinks when the structure falls apart it mass no long participates in f=ma, or E=1/2mvv. m just fades away for bio who support the nonsensical paper as you do. Is Gravity on ignore too?

Is there a simple download of the paper yet, or it is still on the web site of 911 woo?

[bio]

The paper proves no CD with the evidence provided in the paper. The only purpose of the paper is to back in the possibility of CD without evidence. 8 years and you guys can't grasp reality.

(...)

Show me the pile-driver on Ground Zero, if you can grasp with reality!

How can people survive under the piledriver?
How can parts of the core and perimeter columns withstand the piledriver?
Why I cannot see a piledriver behind the standing perimeter columns at GZ?

For me it looks like, as if everything exploded away from each tower!

[beachnut]

Show me the pile-driver on Ground Zero, if you can grasp with reality!

How can people survive under the piledriver?
How can parts of the core and perimeter columns withstand the piledriver?
Why I cannot see a piledriver behind the standing perimeter columns at GZ?

For me it looks like, as if everything exploded away from each tower!
What kind of engineer are you? Why do you think mass disappears when it is smashed up? Did you take physics? Did you pass? I think your support for Tom's paper is top notch.

The falling towers had the kinetic energy of over 240 tons of TNT, like 240 2,000 pound bombs, so you will see some things you have never seen before unless you have seen 240 2,000 pound bombs do something. Is 240 2,000 pound bombs enough energy to do what you make up happened on 911? Why can't you grasp the energy of collapse?

[NutCracker]

Show me the pile-driver on Ground Zero, if you can grasp with reality!

How can people survive under the piledriver?
How can parts of the core and perimeter columns withstand the piledriver?
Why I cannot see a piledriver behind the standing perimeter columns at GZ?

For me it looks like, as everything exploded away from each tower!

Let's see this "alternative theory" of yours: the towers fell because of cd.
How then do you explain that some people survived under the "pile driver?" How then do you explain then that parts of the core and perimeter columns withstood "the piledriver?" How do you explain then that I can't see a "piledriver" behind the standing perimeter columns at GZ? Huh, huh? Explain that, you alternative theory sheeple, worshipper!

You see, this "alternative theory" of yours doesn't make sense. Therefore the "official theory" is right.

[16:32:01.020] Thruther-logic.jar inference engine unloaded.
[16:32:02.351] Real-logic.jar inference logic reloaded. Time of last usage: 16:31:45.716.
[16:32:02.367] Reality mode restored.

[Major_Tom]

We have a basic misunderstanding on how to read the BV and BL papers linked in my last post.

Each is only a few pages long so it shouldn't be difficult to to see if R Mackey, Dave, NB and Myriad are right or wrong. We need to clear this up before the thread can progress.

My suggestion is that the readers learn to distinguish between Bazant and Zhao, published in 2002, and BL and BV, published in 2008.

Anyway, of the 4 only Myriad has tried to justify his opinion with an actual quote. He simply quoted the wrong abstract from the wrong paper presenting a different argument published 6 years earlier.

But that's cool, at least he tried.

So, I'll offer one last chance for those posters to reconsider their views before proceeding.

[DavidJames]

So, I'll offer one last chance for those posters to reconsider their views before proceeding.Please proceed directly to presenting your findings to engineering colleges/universities and/or submitting papers to engineering journals or organizations.

Come back and post links when you're done.

Edit - I won't be holding my breath.

[sheeplesnshills]

We have a basic misunderstanding on how to read the BV and BL papers linked in my last post.

Each is only a few pages long so it shouldn't be difficult to to see if R Mackey, Dave, NB and Myriad are right or wrong. We need to clear this up before the thread can progress.

My suggestion is that the readers learn to distinguish between Bazant and Zhao, published in 2002, and BL and BV, published in 2008.

Anyway, of the 4 only Myriad has tried to justify his opinion with an actual quote. He simply quoted the wrong abstract from the wrong paper presenting a different argument published 6 years earlier.

But that's cool, at least he tried.

So, I'll offer one last chance for those posters to reconsider their views before proceeding.


Assuming you are right and everyone else is wrong about how the building collapsed after the initiation event, so what? Interesting from a tech point of view and worth a technical paper, but its irrelevant to the subject of this section of the JREF forum, which is 911 Conspiracy Theories other than to debunk all the ridiculous CD "proof" that the truther movement comes up with.
You don't have to prove to us that the building would collapse after being hit by a plane and the subsequent fires:)
If however you are suggesting that something else was the initiator please open a new thread and detail with proofs what you think happened.

[Newtons Bit]

Anyway, of the 4 only Myriad has tried to justify his opinion with an actual quote. He simply quoted the wrong abstract from the wrong paper presenting a different argument published 6 years earlier.

You are a :rule10'ing liar.

[Major_Tom]

Sheeples, good question.

There is so much crap in the "debate". Many truthers are just as guilty as many debunkers. It's a way to clear the air and focus on real issues.

Basically, it's a way to clear the air for the studies to follow. If this is not understood, people won't have a chance with what's to follow.

Bio, I'm not avoiding your question, I just don't have time to respond today.

NB, please keep digging a hole for yourself.

[Newtons Bit]

NB, please keep digging a hole for yourself.

The very first post I made on this thread quoted by the BZ paper and the BV paper. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5922853&postcount=3) And that wasn't the only time. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5924647&postcount=13)

Dumb :rule10. You wonder why people here just laugh at you? This is one of the reasons. You're worried about "the thread progressing". You need to be worried about your basic reading comprehension as you display zero aptitude in this skill.

[NutCracker]

Sheeples, good question.

There is so much crap in the "debate". Many truthers are just as guilty as many debunkers. It's a way to clear the air and focus on real issues.

Basically, it's a way to clear the air for the studies to follow. If this is not understood, people won't have a chance with what's to follow.

Bio, I'm not avoiding your question, I just don't have time to respond today.

NB, please keep digging a hole for yourself.

Feel free to take your earthshattering findings to an accepted academic peer reviewed journal. There is no doubt your obvious intellectual superiority will give you an edge.

Drop me a PM when you have done so, 'cause I'll put you on ignore.

[Reactor drone]

We have a basic misunderstanding on how to read the BV and BL papers linked in my last post.

Each is only a few pages long so it shouldn't be difficult to to see if R Mackey, Dave, NB and Myriad are right or wrong. We need to clear this up before the thread can progress.

My suggestion is that the readers learn to distinguish between Bazant and Zhao, published in 2002, and BL and BV, published in 2008.



BL:

Bazant & Le
Closure to "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions"
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25%20WTC%20Discussions%20Replies.pdf


Why do you refer to this as BL since it's just a discussion/continuation of the Bazant and Verdure paper?

[Major_Tom]

NB commented: You are a 'ing liar.

To which I answered: NB, please keep digging a hole for yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I retract the statement and apologize for the provocative statement.

I am reminded that within the entire body of work attributed to Plato, I have never seen Socrates say something like: "Hey, screw you, Buddy! Take a $#*@% leap!"

Instead he remains open to all views and courteous to all participants, inviting them to examine their own opinions for errors while freely admitting his own. Maybe for this reason the literature remains as a powerful example of civil discursive reasoning.

I was wrong to provoke him in this way. This is the home forum for many of you and I am just a guest. Using the example of Socrates I'll try to control impulses better.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

NB is also correct that he quoted from the correct paper, though in my opinion he interpreted the paper wrongly and in such a way that the main author himself would be baffled by the response given by NB and other posters as I will try to demonstrate through the arguments to come over the next few days.

But first I must clarify the views expressed by these posters to make sure we are all in agreement over what we are discussing. I'll do that over my next few posts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

David James comments: Please proceed directly to presenting your findings to engineering colleges/universities and/or submitting papers to engineering journals or organizations.

What's wrong with JREF for informal solicitation of comments over the first draft?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

RD asks: Why do you refer to this as BL since it's just a discussion/continuation of the Bazant and Verdure paper?

I follow the convention set by Dr Benson (DBB) who used it in discussion before me.

He wrote:

"B&L = BVreply.

First of all, the BV crush-down equation depends upon four simplifying assumptions, one of which is homogeneity and another is one dimensionality. Neither assumption holds well at the start when the kinetic energy of the moving portion is small. I have no disagreement with Major_Tom about the segment of zone C from the west wall, his analysis seems correct if he can actually identify the blackened portions of the exterior walls. The more recent attempt regarding NE corner could be based at floor 90 just as well as floor 96; a timing analysis might help to distinguish the two possiblities.

I suppose all of this happens with 1.5 seconds of collapse initiation,although I would like some timings! Thereinafter the collapse is closer to "pure" crush down. In any case, B&L indicate the possiblity of some early crush-up and so even having two sections of exterior wall ripped out is only a quite modest portion of zone C. Much the same happens to zone C of your crush-down simulation."

It's a significant article in itself. Dr Benson always refers to it as B&L or Bazant & Le, to distinguish it as a separate work - which it is. If the singular result of BL is not applicable to the towers, some of the specific mechanics go out the window.

As NB says:

"Bazant and Verdue[sic] 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."


This is starting not only from a specific case, but an extreme limit case and one which does not in fact match observables, and generalizing. The lynchpin of the rigid top assumption is 'proven' for a single special case, it does not apply to the general case so neither does the associated assumption. It's constitutive and still quite accurate in an overall sense, but there is some devil in the details. It's not the final word on dynamic models of the towers, let alone in the universal case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

More to come.

[TSR]

More to come.

.
In the lower right hand corner of each post is a button labeled "Quote" Please learn its function.
.

[Newtons Bit]

.
In the lower right hand corner of each post is a button labeled "Quote" Please learn its function.
.

Did he say anything worthwhile? I put him on ignore.

[Sam.I.Am]

Did he say anything worthwhile? I put him on ignore.

I guess you could call it a Mea Culpa.

[carlitos]

It does not speak well that this engineer cannot figure out the quote function on a simple internet forum.

ETA - sorry for being redundant. Didn't see TSR's post.

[Major_Tom]

A preview of where this thread will be going and something to think about:

Is there any way, by using any of Dr Bazant's arguments about WTC1 in any of his papers, to distinguish between a natural collapse and a CD which takes advantage of ROOSD?

[T.A.M.]

Socrates doesn't tend to work very well here, but nice try.

TAM:)

[R.Mackey]

A preview of where this thread will be going and something to think about:

Is there any way, by using any of Dr Bazant's arguments about WTC1 in any of his papers, to distinguish between a natural collapse and a CD which takes advantage of ROOSD?

If this is where you're going, I'll save you the trouble. This line of inquiry goes nowhere.

Originally it was claimed by the Truth Movement that the character of the WTC collapses could only be caused by explosives. This, of course, was utter nonsense. Dr. Bazant's first paper was out before there ever was a Truth Movement, and the early Truthers were totally ignorant of his findings.

Dr. Bazant's later papers are a refinement of his initial work, partly in response to Truthers who remained ignorant even after learning of his findings, such as Mr. Gourley. They prove exactly what they set out to prove, namely that this style of collapse is not only possible, but in fact predicted, and that no explosives or thermite or space beams or anything are needed.

What you are asking is whether Dr. Bazant's results rule out explosives. That was not their intent, but in fact, they do. Not because an explosive demolition would perform differently with respect to the effects modeled, though. Instead, Dr. Bazant rules out explosives by attacking the "evidence" for explosives -- the only "evidence" there has ever been in support is the claim that it couldn't have happened any other way. That claim is refuted by Dr. Bazant's work, and therefore, there is no evidence of any kind, including the circumstantial for explosives.

What you're doing, typical of the more inane Truthers, is performing an extremely slow, dull-witted, and well-telegraphed Shifting the Burden of Proof and Begging the Question logical fallacy. Dr. Bazant's papers do precisely what they were intended to do. You are trying to show they are inadequate for a purpose they were never intended, and is not needed in the first place. What a waste of time.

[Major_Tom]

In what way does his papers rule out a CD based on exploiting a ROOSD process?

I've never been able to take many of the claims by some truth movements seriously and have been kicked out of the STJ911 forum for asking too many questions. I, too, can kick Judy Wood around like a beach ball, but what point would it serve?

In my studies I have encountered many like-minded people who cannot accept the fall of WTC7 as a natural event, like you can.
.............

R Mackey comments: "What you are asking is whether Dr. Bazant's results rule out explosives. That was not their intent, but in fact, they do."

Where in the Bazant arguments is the possibility of a CD based on ROOSD, exploiting the natural weaknesses of the building with minimal explosives, addressed?

I think you must agree that it is not. True?

Can anyone else find where Dr Bazant proves that this type of CD couldn't happen? Where he addresses it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If not, is it not true that the papers of Dr Bazant are largely irrelevent when considering this type of controlled demolition?

[carlitos]

minimal explosives - LOL.

Please calculate the minimal explosives required, including their likely decibel levels.

this type of controlled demolition?

What type? Please give some examples of this "type" of controlled demolition. Or shall I switch into truther argument from incredulity and as if this is the only time in history that such a CD took place? Was it the real CD deal?

[ProBonoShill]

A preview of where this thread will be going and something to think about:

Is there any way, by using any of Dr Bazant's arguments about WTC1 in any of his papers, to distinguish between a natural collapse and a CD which takes advantage of ROOSD?

Oh boy, here it comes.

What a shocker.

[R.Mackey]

In what way does his papers rule out a CD based on exploiting a ROOSD process?

Either logic or the English language escape you -- I answered you in the post you responded to. That was the whole point of the post!

Tell you what. I'll try again, and I'll use small words and simple sentences.

1. There is no evidence for explosives. None.

2. The closest there has ever been was a belief that only explosives would cause collapses like that.

3. This belief is false. Dr. Bazant's papers prove this.

4. Therefore, his papers rule out a controlled demolition.


Don't respond yet, just read the above until you understand.

Now that you understand, it's my turn to ask a question. You're interested in "controlled demolition" of WTC 1 and 2. Will you follow the scientific method in your study? Yes or no?

[Profanz]

1.There is no evidence for explosives. None.

None were looked for. There are evidently a lot of things that were missed and still missing from ground zero.

B]2.[/B] The closest there has ever been was a belief that only explosives would cause collapses like that.

No. The only thing that has ever before and since and ever will cause a collapse like that is explosives or incendiaries.

3. This belief is false. Dr. Bazant's papers prove this.

Bazant? Please. He came to a conclusion two days after the attacks based on no real investigation at all. Why do you keep trotting that lame crap out?

4. Therefore, his papers rule out a controlled demolition.

And the Bible rules out Atheism right?

Now that you understand, it's my turn to ask a question. You're interested in "controlled demolition" of WTC 1 and 2. Will you follow the scientific method in your study? Yes or no?

No one can or could have completely followed the scientific method as far as the WTC crimes go. The evidence was destroyed.

[Dave Rogers]

None were looked for. There are evidently a lot of things that were missed and still missing from ground zero.

The audible record has been closely scrutinised for evidence of explosives, and the expected sound levels compared with actual sound levels. The result is that the audible record is grossly incompatible with the presence of explosives. Like it or not, that's evidence.

No. The only thing that has ever before and since and ever will cause a collapse like that is explosives or incendiaries.

Wrong; there has never been a collapse of a building that large before. Nor has there been a collapse like that caused by incendiaries, if by incendiaries you mean thermite; there is not even an existence theorem for thermite causing failure of steel structural members in a large building.

Bazant? Please. He came to a conclusion two days after the attacks based on no real investigation at all. Why do you keep trotting that lame crap out?

The speed with which Bazant was able to carry out his analysis, coupled with the fact that the validity of that analysis has never been challenged by anyone without major misconceptions about either the nature of the analysis, the structure of the buildings or the behaviour of steel, clearly suggests that the collapses were expected behaviour.

No one can or could have completely followed the scientific method as far as the WTC crimes go. The evidence was destroyed.

Clearly untrue, as it's that very evidence you're discussing.

Dave

[beachnut]

...
What you're doing, typical of the more inane Truthers, is performing an extremely slow, dull-witted, and well-telegraphed Shifting the Burden of Proof and Begging the Question logical fallacy. Dr. Bazant's papers do precisely what they were intended to do. You are trying to show they are inadequate for a purpose they were never intended, and is not needed in the first place. What a waste of time.

If not for the Internet poor Major Tom would not be able to think he has enough support to maintain his delusions of cd. In my studies I have encountered many like-minded people who cannot accept the fall of WTC7 as a natural event, like you can.

He has the super knowledgeable support of
None were looked for. There are evidently a lot of things that were missed and still missing from ground zero. ...
Wow, he actually let his failure to understand the evidence slip and is kind of taking a stand with the insane world of CD, where no thermite products were found, no blast damage was found on any steel, and zero sounds of explosives on 911. If you are going to take a stand and make up a fantasy, it may as well be pure hogwash and used to support a nonsensical paper you don't understand anyway.

[Major_Tom]

I asked R Mackey: Is there any way, by using any of Dr Bazant's arguments about WTC1 in any of his papers, to distinguish between a natural collapse and a CD which takes advantage of ROOSD?

He claims to answer, reasoning thus while talking down to me::

"Tell you what. I'll try again, and I'll use small words and simple sentences.

1. There is no evidence for explosives. None.

2. The closest there has ever been was a belief that only explosives would cause collapses like that.

3. This belief is false. Dr. Bazant's papers prove this.

4. Therefore, his papers rule out a controlled demolition."


R Mackey, I'll give you an example in BLGB:

(BLGB)What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York

Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David B. Benson

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/476%20WTC%20collapse.pdf


The paper consist of 11 sections:

1) Inabsorbable Kinetic Energy

2) Generalization of Differential Equation of Progressive Collapse

3) Variation of Mass and Buckling Resistance along the Height

4) Velocity of Air Ejected from the Tower

5) Resisting Forces Due to Ejecting Air and Solids

6) Energy Dissipated by Comminution (or Fragmentation and Pulverization)

7) Energy Required to Produce All of Pulverized Concrete

8) Analysis of Video-Recorded Motion and Correction for Tilt

9) Comparisons of Calculated Motion with Video Record

10) Comparison of Collapse Duration with Seismic Record

11) Effect of Uncertainty of Mass Shedding Fraction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Section 1 cannot be used to distinguish between a CD which intentionally initiates ROOSD and a natural collapse since both cases involve inabsorbable kinetic energy.

Section 2 is actually wrong as the study shows. Dr Bazant applies the equations of motion derived in BV and BL to WTC1. We now know you cannot do that because the 4 simplifying assumptions do not apply to WTC1.

Section 3 is shown to be irrelevant since column buckling and varying mass does not contribute to the ROOSD propagation. Columns are simply bypassed.

Section 4 cannot distinguish between a CD exploiting ROOSD and a natural collapse

Section 5 cannot distinguish between the 2 cases

Section 6 would be the same in both cases

Section 7 tells us nothing since the answer is the same for both cases

Section 8 is useless for distinguishing between the 2 cases

Sections 9, 10, 11 contribute nothing that help us distinguish between CD and natural collapse.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

We will also go through each section of the other 3 papers the same way.


I am obviously looking for the sections within each Bazant paper which can be used to rule out CD by intentionally creating ROOSD. His arguments may be good for showing the building wasn't blown "to kingdom come" or attacked by space beams,

but most every section in each paper is useless to help us prove natural collapse as opposed to a minimal explosive demolition exploiting ROOSD.


It looks impressive, but it's mostly useless to differentiate between natural collapse and CD in light of the study in the OP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

R Mackey asks: "Will you follow the scientific method in your study? Yes or no?"

How would you classify the approach of Sherlock Holmes?

[R.Mackey]

Then you fail to understand.

If you cannot understand, at least answer my question: You're interested in "controlled demolition" of WTC 1 and 2. Will you follow the scientific method in your study? Yes or no?

So far, what you've done does not follow the Scientific Method at all.

[carlitos]

That paper does look impressive. Similarly, I would not attempt to use it to rule out ROOST DEW. Really the paper is useless to help us prove that sharks with lasers caused the whole thing.

[Major_Tom]

R Mackey, in a post on page 3 you wrote: " Personally, I like how he seems to think Bazant and Le (2002) is supposed to be an accurate description of the collapse rather than a limiting case, or that he thinks that plus Bazant and Verdure (2006) cover the entire scope of the literature. As if we hadn't explained this to practically every Truther who ever lived a million times each."

Of course you were confusing Bazant and Le with Bazant and Zhao. Do you agree with Dave and Myriad that the crush up, crush down model developed in BV and BL was meant as just a limiting case, or does Bazant believe it really applies to WTC1?

[carlitos]

Which paper ruled out Mothra?

[TruthersLie]

My point EXACTLY!!!!

though the more I think about it the more I like the sharks with lasers...

oh oh oh...
mothra AND sharks with lasers!!!! :jaw-dropp

(did I just become a Mothra disinfo agent?):cool:

[beachnut]

... How would you classify the approach of Sherlock Holmes? It is called fiction, better fiction than your CD delusion. You think you are Sherlock Holmes solving the mysteries of 911; cool. Fictional character goes with your fictional insane CD theories.

If you were Sherlock Holmes you would have solved 911 in minutes like the Passengers on Flight 93 and not made up fantasies of CD.

[femr2]

What exactly is the problem with you folk ?

We have nowt of Bazant et al that deals with initiation, and yet we have folk like Mackey stating implicitly that the papers of Bazant et al prove no CD.

Absolutely ridiculous. CC creep anyone ?

If you only had the courage to be clear it would be a lot less painful to watch.

So you think there is no other evidence of CD. That's fine, and your opinion.

Bazant et al do NOT in ANY way disprove CD. More towards natural collapse than the major ity of what is termed the *truth movement*, sure.

ROOSD does not prove nor disprove CD.

Banal inference is laughable.

Flame on, but get a grip. Pathetic.

[beachnut]

What exactly is the problem with you folk ? ... 911 truth has delusions on 911; strange question to ask when you have zero evidence to support your CD delusions or thermite insanity.

What exactly happened to your evidence? Thank you.

You agree his reference to CD in the conclusion is nonsense? I recall your work is nonsensical on 911 and is filled with fantasy thermite and no planes.

I do not touch JREF, it is a futile exercise, due to the fact that when the 'debunkers' decide they have made their point (which is usually woefully incorrect) they swarm around like a bunch of vultures posing pictures of kitten and motorcycles. 911 truth posts fantasy, and others post reality. 911 truth can't find the truth as they ironically support a their failed truth movement filled with delusional lies for 8 years with nothing.

911 truth points are delusions formed with lies, hearsay, and failed ideas. What will you do for the next 8 years to ensure 911 truth remain evidence free and supports the failed fantasies they have?

In the world of 911 delusions which are indicative of 911 truth and your work, the faithful cult members would say something like this which is useful if you turn it around as a critique for the failed paper that is the topic at hand.
Given the clear motives of many of the JREF users, my heartfelt response is...

LOL@JREF. Now, unless you have anything of substance to contribute, I bid you farewell. Did you ban his paper? Need help on turning this around?

[femr2]

Capable of addressing the post content Beachnut ?

Seems all you are capable of is *riding* *twoofers*. Great stuff. Not my fetish I'm afraid, but carry on if you like. TLI is painless.

[funk de fino]

What exactly is the problem with you folk ?

We have nowt of Bazant et al that deals with initiation, and yet we have folk like Mackey stating implicitly that the papers of Bazant et al prove no CD.

Absolutely ridiculous. CC creep anyone ?

If you only had the courage to be clear it would be a lot less painful to watch.

So you think there is no other evidence of CD. That's fine, and your opinion.

Bazant et al do NOT in ANY way disprove CD. More towards natural collapse than the major ity of what is termed the *truth movement*, sure.

ROOSD does not prove nor disprove CD.

Banal inference is laughable.

Flame on, but get a grip. Pathetic.

I go with Brent Blanchard on this one. How about you?

[beachnut]

Capable of addressing the post content Beachnut ?

Seems all you are capable of is *riding* *twoofers*. Great stuff. Not my fetish I'm afraid, but carry on if you like. TLI is painless.
You understand engineering as well as you do RADAR, and Flight 175's real flight path.

Your contents failed to make the cut of being of substance to comment on; you would have to ban yourself from your own forum if you had substantial skills as an engineer to understand your failure. I cheated, I have a masters degree in engineering and can see your work on 911 is pure hogwash without much effort; whereas you put in a lot of effort to make up total nonsensical conclusions based on hogwash you worked hard to perfect.

I like your work and use it as an example of failure; it also makes my work look so much better.

I can't say it better but this is my comment on your content as I borrow your words. unless you have anything of substance to contribute, I bid you farewell

You said,I do not touch JREF, another lie like CD. Are you the nano-thermite insane claim maker/supporter?
911 truth has made insane claims for over 8 years. If they had the evidence to back them up they would have had Pulitzer Prizes all over the place. Why are we bombarded by failed insane claims sporadicly each time you, tony, Jones, Balsamo, Gage or tom get excited your ideas might be real?

Why do you support papers with the purpose to back-in CD? Trying to make CD a possible scenario? Where are your silent explosives that leave no blast damage or products?

Got that Pulitzer Prize yet? Why not? Did a dog eat your evidence? Need a photo of a cat? JREF rocks, you understand this is a skeptics forum? Got some proof of your claims yet? I found your claims or weak support or posting of idiotic 911 truth junk like nano-thermite is based on lack of knowledge and shallow research; just my expert engineering take based on running labs and participating in studies which results made it in real journals.


Not at all. It means that in the WTC1, 2 design a runaway destruction potential has always existed in the OOS spaces completely surrounding the cores which a demolition team can exploit by setting up sufficient initial conditions higher in the towers.
Why is demolition in a paper about a gravity collapse? You guys are always trying to back in support for your failed CD fantasy.

So you think there is no other evidence of CD. That's fine, and your opinion. It is a fact, a fact that you can't figure out after 8 years of messing up 911 issues. Lost your evidence to support CD?

[img cat photo] to celebrate your lost evidence, the evidence you never had, the evidence you think your opinions are[/img cat photo]

[Major_Tom]

Femr says: "We have nowt of Bazant et al that deals with initiation, and yet we have folk like Mackey stating implicitly that the papers of Bazant et al prove no CD."

There are a few sections that deal with initiation in the papers, but they are only a tiny fraction of the total. That's the problem.

The papers may impress with a lot of math which is over the heads of most posters here, but very few of the arguments are capable of distinguishing between a natural collapse and a CD which cleverly takes advantages of weak seams within the building.

95% of the papers are useless for distinguishing between an intelligently planned CD which takes advantage of the natural weaker seams and paths within the structure and a natural collapse.

For the purposes of discussing ROOSD they are 95% hot air. We will see that whole sections of the papers are shown to be incorrect simply by using the information provided in the study in the OP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Just so all readers have access to each paper, the 4 papers are:



(BZ)Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis

Zdenek P. Bazant and Yong Zhou

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf



(BV)Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World
Trade Center and Building Demolitions

Zdenek P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf



(BL=BVReply)Closure to “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade
Center and Building Demolitions” by Zdene?k P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure

Zdenek P. Bažant and Jia-Liang Le

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25%20WTC%20Discussions%20Replies.pdf



(BLGB)What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York

Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David B. Benson

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/476%20WTC%20collapse.pdf

[beachnut]

Femr says: "We have nowt of Bazant et al that deals with initiation, and yet we have folk like Mackey stating implicitly that the papers of Bazant et al prove no CD."

There are a few sections that deal with initiation in the papers, but they are only a tiny fraction of the total. That's the problem.

The papers may impress with a lot of math which is over the heads of most posters here, but very few of the arguments are capable of distinguishing between a natural collapse and a CD which cleverly takes advantages of weak seams within the building.

95% of the papers are useless for distinguishing between an intelligently planned CD which takes advantage of the natural weaker seams and paths within the structure and a natural collapse.

For the purposes of discussing ROOSD they are 95% hot air. We will see that whole sections of the papers are shown to be incorrect simply by using the information provided in the study in the OP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Just so all readers have access to each paper, the 4 papers are:



(BZ)Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis

Zdenek P. Bazant and Yong Zhou

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf



(BV)Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World
Trade Center and Building Demolitions

Zdenek P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf



(BL=BVReply)Closure to “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade
Center and Building Demolitions” by Zdene?k P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure

Zdenek P. Bažant and Jia-Liang Le

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25%20WTC%20Discussions%20Replies.pdf



(BLGB)What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York

Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David B. Benson

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/476%20WTC%20collapse.pdf


Oops, no CD.

Thus, the recent allegations of controlled demolition are
baseless.
the allegations of controlled demolition to be absurd and leave no doubt that the towers failed due to gravity-driven progressive collapse triggered by the effects of fire.
Do you have an engineering degree? What school? Good luck with the paper, and when will some of the math be ready?

[Reactor drone]

So, to recap-

Bazant + x and NIST

-After initiation, building will collapse naturally (no CD necessary)
-Aircraft impact and fires sufficient to cause collapse initiation
-No evidence found for any CD

Conclusion:Aircraft impact and fires caused structural failure resulting in rapid progressive collapse.

Major Tom ROOSD

-After initiation, building will collapse naturally (no CD necessary)
-Wild speculation about some method of CD causing collapse initiation.
-No evidence presented for CD

Conclusion-Since no evidence of CD is presented, speculation about CD is pointless as you can place any other demolition scenario you like in there without changing the result (Space beams, mini nukes, sharks with laser beams, Mothra, holographic plane/missiles etc).


If you want to say there is CD you need to show evidence of CD, not just evidence that you can take either way. Since the generally accepted timeline for September 11 contains all that is necessary to explain the collapses it is considered to be correct.

Please present all your evidence that says, "Only a CD can cause this."

I'll wait :)

[R.Mackey]

R Mackey, in a post on page 3 you wrote: " Personally, I like how he seems to think Bazant and Le (2002) is supposed to be an accurate description of the collapse rather than a limiting case, or that he thinks that plus Bazant and Verdure (2006) cover the entire scope of the literature. As if we hadn't explained this to practically every Truther who ever lived a million times each."

Of course you were confusing Bazant and Le with Bazant and Zhao. Do you agree with Dave and Myriad that the crush up, crush down model developed in BV and BL was meant as just a limiting case, or does Bazant believe it really applies to WTC1?

I don't see an answer to my question anywhere in there.

In typical Truther fashion, you answer my question with a question, and your question is nonsense to boot. You may as well say the paper used Newton's Second Law, so is Newton's Second Law just meant as a limiting case or does it really apply to WTC 1. Your logical fallacy this time is the Fallacy of Many Questions, which is slightly more interesting than your previous dodges, but still just plain stupid.

I'm not inclined to explain any further without some reciprocity from you. Third time: You're interested in "controlled demolition" of WTC 1 and 2. Will you follow the scientific method in your study? Yes or no?

You have no good reason for not answering. It's a simple question.

[Hokulele]

Good grief. Doesn't anyone who supports the CD nutbars understand the difference between "rules out CD" and "makes CD unnecessary"?

[Major_Tom]

R Mackey asks: "I'm not inclined to explain any further without some reciprocity from you. Third time: You're interested in "controlled demolition" of WTC 1 and 2. Will you follow the scientific method in your study? Yes or no?"

Reciprocity is good. I wasn't avoiding the question.

R Mackey asked: "Will you follow the scientific method in your study? Yes or no?"

I answered: "How would you classify the approach of Sherlock Holmes? If his methodology was considered scientific, good. If not, what methods did he use?"
\>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And mine to you:

1) R Mackey, in a post on page 3 you wrote: " Personally, I like how he seems to think Bazant and Le (2002) is supposed to be an accurate description of the collapse rather than a limiting case, or that he thinks that plus Bazant and Verdure (2006) cover the entire scope of the literature. As if we hadn't explained this to practically every Truther who ever lived a million times each."

Of course you were confusing Bazant and Le with Bazant and Zhao. Do you agree with Dave and Myriad that the crush up, crush down model developed in BV and BL was meant as just a limiting case, or does Bazant believe it really applies to WTC1?


and another...

2) R Mackey, does Dr Bazant believe WTC1 experienced crush down, then crush up as he explains or is the idea of crush down, then crush up just a "limiting hypothetical case in which the structure is best able to resist collapse".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Dave, Myriad and NB have made their opinions clear already. You have not. I need a clear answer from you before I can respond to them.

[R.Mackey]

R Mackey asks: "I'm not inclined to explain any further without some reciprocity from you. Third time: You're interested in "controlled demolition" of WTC 1 and 2. Will you follow the scientific method in your study? Yes or no?"

Reciprocity is good. I wasn't avoiding the question.

R Mackey asked: "Will you follow the scientific method in your study? Yes or no?"

I answered: "How would you classify the approach of Sherlock Holmes? If his methodology was considered scientific, good. If not, what methods did he use?"

So now you answer my question with a totally idiotic nonsense question.

I won't bother asking again. I will simply note that you are being deliberately evasive. Whether you are just a troll, can't even define the Scientific Method beyond vague analogy to mythical figures of popular literature, or have the reading comprehension of concrete, I neither know nor care. There is no need nor purpose in taking you seriously, and this thread is proof.

[Major_Tom]

That is absurd. What methodology does a good investigative reporter use or a person trying to solve a crime? I'm not avoiding anything.

R Mackey writes: "I neither know nor care. There is no need nor purpose in taking you seriously, and this thread is proof"

Do you believe that WTC1 collapsed by a "crush down, then crush up"?

Does Dr Bazant seem to believe it literally, or as just some "limiting case".

These are very important questions to answer correctly and it is you who are being evasive, because you know that no matter how you answer the question you will have to admit major flaws in much of what Dr Bazant claims in his paper.

You do not have to be a genius to see that the type of collapse propagation shown in the study contradicts much of what Dr Bazant says about "crush down, then crush up".

Instead of just admitting Dr Bazant guessed wrong about "crush down, then crush up", some other posters claim he doesn't mean what he says to be literally applied to WTC1, because if he did mean it literally it would show that the Great Dr Bazant made some pretty big boo-boos in the papers many of you treat as Gospel.

Because NB, Myriad, Dave and R Mackey cannot admit Dr Bazant is subject to error just like the rest of us humans, they are forced to make claims that I will show contradict what Dr Bazant writes in his papers. Because of this I expect each to cling to the notion of an "upper block" and "crush down, then crush up" despite visual evidence to the contrary. I ask them questions about these imaginary concepts to see if they agree or disagree with Dr Bazant.

They are forced to keep clinging to those imaginary concepts or admit Dr Bazant may be wrong from time to time.

[R.Mackey]

It is absurd, but it's your fault. You are not Sherlock Holmes. You aren't even Inspector Clouseau.

The question you've asked is a scientific one. Yet you don't even know what the scientific method is. That pretty much irretrievably defines you as a consummate fraud.

[Major_Tom]

Of course I don't claim to be Sherlock Holmes.

R Mackey comments: "Yet you don't even know what the scientific method is."

Is that the thing you used to claim that WTC7 fell naturally?

Please use the scientific method to show that crush down, then crush up applies to WTC1 as Dr Bazant claims

Do you agree Dr Bazant believes crush down, then crush up applies literally to WTC1?

I could just answer the question for you since I know you won't. Yes. He believes this literally and applies it literally in BLGB.

[R.Mackey]

Yes, the Scientific Method is what we use to claim WTC 7 fell "naturally."

Like I said, you don't understand it. Not a big surprise, given you couldn't even understand this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5958130#post5958130), even after I wrote it at a level comprehensible to six-year-old.

There's simply no way we can dumb it down anymore. You just don't have what it takes.

[beachnut]

...Bazant? Please. He came to a conclusion two days after the attacks based on no real investigation at all. Why do you keep trotting that lame crap out? ...
What learning disability does 911 truth suffer from? Why can't you figure out 911?
Let me breakdown the gage on timing to understand 911.
Best is to figure out 911 and take action, it was done in minutes by Flight 93 Heroes who took action!

Next is the rest of the world figured out 911 in a day or two and refined the details as facts and evidence unfolded.

Bazant was able to do a model in a day, he must of finished college and learned something; what is your excuse for failing to figure out 911 in days?

Review:
Flight 93 Passengers best at figuring out 911 they took MINUTES!
Bazant took a day to model the collapse of the WTC; DAYS!
911 truth and you have no clue and prove it daily by posting your ignorance on 911 as often as the spirit moves you! 8 years and NO JOY!

We have heroes who figured out 911 in minutes and 911 truth who can't figure out 911 given 8 years and the answers! Why are you unable to figure out 911? Not enough time or can't grasp the evidence? Problems with math and physics?

The people with "lame crap", are 911 truth who can't figure out 911 given the answers. This new paper is indicative of the failure of 911 truth and those who prefer nonsensical lies you tacitly support over reality.

[Major_Tom]

My original question to R Mackey was: "Is there any way, by using any of Dr Bazant's arguments about WTC1 in any of his papers, to distinguish between a natural collapse and a CD which takes advantage of ROOSD? "

To which he responded:

"Either logic or the English language escape you -- I answered you in the post you responded to. That was the whole point of the post!

Tell you what. I'll try again, and I'll use small words and simple sentences.

1. There is no evidence for explosives. None.

2. The closest there has ever been was a belief that only explosives would cause collapses like that.

3. This belief is false. Dr. Bazant's papers prove this.

4. Therefore, his papers rule out a controlled demolition."

R Mackey seems quite proud of that answer, having repeated it in his last post. I must be too dumb to see anything but avoidance in his answer.

I'll answer the original question for you, R Mackey. The answer is "no".

R Mackey, please point to the section or paragraph in BGLB which shows how we can distinguish between the 2 cases and "rule out demolition". A direct quote please.

But the question that R Mackey really cannot answer is:

Does Dr Bazant believe crush down, then crush up applies literally to WTC1?

He avoids answering this because he must either disagree with Dr Bazant or admit that R Mackey, too, takes "crush down, then crush up" literally. Taking a stand either way will prove too embarrassing for him.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Consider this comment by NB on page 1:

" Incidentally, you haven't done anything to debunk crush-up / crush-down. Even in a floor failing model, crush-up / crush-down still applies due to the simple fact that there is very little force being applied to the upper block. The rubble layer is still doing all the destruction."

NB, open your eyes and look at the 4 physical observations in the study. You will seriously try to defend Dr Bazant's crush down, then crush up to the literal case of WTC1?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


On page 3 Myriad writes: " Bazant's model is a limiting case representing the most favorable assumptions for collapse arrest. Among those assumptions is that all the weight of the falling mass -- even the already crushed and broken rubble -- somehow lands squarely on columns.

In that model, meaning under those assumptions, crush-down precedes crush-up. Bazant shows how and why."

This means Myriad would say that Dr Bazant does not take the idea of "crush down, then crush up" as applying literally to WTC1. He may want to consider what Dr Bazant says in BLGB on the subject. Myriad, are you sure Dr Bazant doesn't think "crush down, then crush up" is actually what happened to WTC1?

[beachnut]

...
This means Myriad would say that Dr Bazant does not take the idea of "crush down, then crush up" as applying literally to WTC1. He may want to consider what Dr Bazant says in BLGB on the subject. Myriad, are you sure Dr Bazant doesn't think "crush down, then crush up" is actually what happened to WTC1?
What is the purpose of proving repeatedly your ignorance of models? Do you share the same problem as Gage and Jones, being blinded by some psychotic pursuit of CD and other idiotic conspiracy theories?

Your paper is hogwash and has no purpose other than a rubber stamp for insane CD conspiracy theories. Attacking models you don't understand amplifies your failure.

You posted papers which clearly, if you understand them, rule out CD. Why are you wasting time on papers which make your delusional CD claims false? You need to find the "evidence" for CD! Sad for you, there is none as you have to make up fictional of silent explosives used by fictional bad guys in the next "loaded diaper" from Jones.

[Newtons Bit]

What is the purpose of proving repeatedly your ignorance of models? Do you share the same problem as Gage and Jones, being blinded by some psychotic pursuit of CD and other idiotic conspiracy theories?

Your paper is hogwash and has no purpose other than a rubber stamp for insane CD conspiracy theories. Attacking models you don't understand amplifies your failure.

You posted papers which clearly, if you understand them, rule out CD. Why are you wasting time on papers which make your delusional CD claims false? You need to find the "evidence" for CD! Sad for you, there is none as you have to make up fictional of silent explosives used by fictional bad guys in the next "loaded diaper" from Jones.

I wonder when he's going to debunk Gage's cardboard box "model"...

[Major_Tom]

A summary of my questions concerning the Bazant papers asked thus far:


1) In BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs. Does he mean this literally?

2) Do you consider the equations of motion in BV, equations 12 and 17, to be accurate for WTC1 considering the information in the ROOSD study?

3) Does Dr Bazant believe crush down, then crush up applies literally to WTC1? (or as just a "limiting hypothetical case in which the structure is best able to resist collapse")

4) Are the findings in the OOS study consistent with the claims of crush down preceding crush up in BV and BL?

5) Where in the BLGB arguments is the possibility of a CD based on ROOSD, exploiting the natural weaknesses of the building with minimal explosives, addressed?

If it is not, is it not true that the the arguments in BLGB are largely irrelevant when considering this type of controlled demolition?

6) When Bazant makes the following statement in BL, what does he mean?:

"So it must be concluded that the simplifying hypothesis of
one-way crushing (i.e., of absence of simultaneous crush-up),
made in the original paper, was perfectly justified and caused
only an imperceptible difference in the results. The crush-up
simultaneous with the crush down is found to have advanced
into the overlying story by only 37 mm for the North Tower
and 26 mm for the South Tower. This means that the initial
crush-up phase terminates when the axial displacement of
columns is only about 10 times larger than their maximum
elastic deformation. Hence, simplifying the analysis by neglecting
the initial two-way crushing phase was correct and
accurate."

Is he applying this to WTC1, or to just a hypothetical extreme case?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

These questions were carefully chosen to expose fundamental weaknesses in Dr Bazant's papers. They also can help us understand the papers better. This is important because there are many false beliefs about what the papers say and do not say.

I do not expect most of you to be able to answer these questions, though if you claim to understand the papers you really ought to be able to answer them by citing quotes from the (correct) papers. Instead we'll go through the questions together and look for the answers using direct quotations of Dr Bazant's own words.

What we have seen in the first 5 pages of this thread is there are many misconceptions about the papers. In the future, an astute reader may want to ask those provide interpretations of what Dr Bazant "felt" or "intended" in the papers to back up their opinions with actual quotes from the (correct) papers. If they cannot, you should be very wary about what and who to "believe".

The list of questions is not complete and will keep on growing.

[Carll68]

Either logic or the English language escape you -- I answered you in the post you responded to. That was the whole point of the post!

Tell you what. I'll try again, and I'll use small words and simple sentences.

1. There is no evidence for explosives. None.

2. The closest there has ever been was a belief that only explosives would cause collapses like that.

3. This belief is false. Dr. Bazant's papers prove this.

4. Therefore, his papers rule out a controlled demolition.


Don't respond yet, just read the above until you understand.

Now that you understand, it's my turn to ask a question. You're interested in "controlled demolition" of WTC 1 and 2. Will you follow the scientific method in your study? Yes or no?

I find it staggering that Major Tom is unable to understand the above qouted post.

So, let me inquire...Tom...do you indeed understand what Ryan was stating in the above quoted post?

Simple Yes or No.

If "No"..why not?

If "Yes"..what?

[carlitos]

The list of questions is not complete and will keep on growing.

minimal explosives - LOL.

Please calculate the minimal explosives required, including their likely decibel levels.

this type of controlled demolition?

What type? Please give some examples of this "type" of controlled demolition. Or shall I switch into truther argument from incredulity and as if this is the only time in history that such a CD took place? Was it the real CD deal?

Also, do you see what's in the circle here? Once pressed, all will become clear.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_334674bfc1c713f646.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=20015)

[bio]

A summary of my questions concerning the Bazant papers asked thus far:


1) In BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs. Does he mean this literally?

2) Do you consider the equations of motion in BV, equations 12 and 17, to be accurate for WTC1 considering the information in the ROOSD study?

3) Does Dr Bazant believe crush down, then crush up applies literally to WTC1? (or as just a "limiting hypothetical case in which the structure is best able to resist collapse")

4) Are the findings in the OOS study consistent with the claims of crush down preceding crush up in BV and BL?

5) Where in the BLGB arguments is the possibility of a CD based on ROOSD, exploiting the natural weaknesses of the building with minimal explosives, addressed?

If it is not, is it not true that the the arguments in BLGB are largely irrelevant when considering this type of controlled demolition?

6) When Bazant makes the following statement in BL, what does he mean?:

"So it must be concluded that the simplifying hypothesis of
one-way crushing (i.e., of absence of simultaneous crush-up),
made in the original paper, was perfectly justified and caused
only an imperceptible difference in the results. The crush-up
simultaneous with the crush down is found to have advanced
into the overlying story by only 37 mm for the North Tower
and 26 mm for the South Tower. This means that the initial
crush-up phase terminates when the axial displacement of
columns is only about 10 times larger than their maximum
elastic deformation. Hence, simplifying the analysis by neglecting
the initial two-way crushing phase was correct and
accurate."

Is he applying this to WTC1, or to just a hypothetical extreme case?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

These questions were carefully chosen to expose fundamental weaknesses in Dr Bazant's papers. They also can help us understand the papers better. This is important because there are many false beliefs about what the papers say and do not say.

I do not expect most of you to be able to answer these questions, though if you claim to understand the papers you really ought to be able to answer them by citing quotes from the (correct) papers. Instead we'll go through the questions together and look for the answers using direct quotations of Dr Bazant's own words.

What we have seen in the first 5 pages of this thread is there are many misconceptions about the papers. In the future, an astute reader may want to ask those provide interpretations of what Dr Bazant "felt" or "intended" in the papers to back up their opinions with actual quotes from the (correct) papers. If they cannot, you should be very wary about what and who to "believe".

The list of questions is not complete and will keep on growing.

thank you very much - it is obviously, that there is a mayor problem with Bazant claim of a "crush-up" after a complete "crush-down". Everybody can see, even in self-proclaimed "debunker"-videos about a french controlled demolition ("on behalf of Ferrari Dominique"):
The upper block is destroyed together with the block underneath it.

[bardamu]

I find it staggering that Major Tom is unable to understand the above qouted post.

So, let me inquire...Tom...do you indeed understand what Ryan was stating in the above quoted post?

Simple Yes or No.

If "No"..why not?

If "Yes"..what?

I suspect everybody is able to understand that Mackey's post is a dodge.

[dafydd]

I suspect everybody is able to understand that Mackey's post is a dodge.

You speak for yourself,I understood his post very well because I am not a brain dead truther.

[femr2]

You speak for yourself,I understood his post very well because I am not a brain dead truther.

It's really not very far from stating that, as NORAD tracks him, the Postal Service accept his mail and many many millions of mums and dads couldn't ALL be lying...that's proof that Santa Claus exists.

Brain dead ? Might be a good idea to be more careful. Blind agreement could leave you looking more and more like your avatar, unless that's actually you already of course.

[dafydd]

No,that is Captain Beefheart in his Trout Mask Replica days.As regards the brain dead statement,I refer you to Jammonious,The Critta,Bill Smith,911 Investigator and others whose names escape me.

[bardamu]

You speak for yourself,I understood his post very well because I am not a brain dead truther.

Where does Bazant prove that collapse could have been triggered without explosives?

[carlitos]

Why are people talking about explosives? Why?

[bardamu]

Why are people talking about explosives? Why?

Because it's been claimed that Bazant's papers prove the towers could have collapsed the way they did without the use of explosives.

[Newtons Bit]

Because it's been claimed that Bazant's papers prove the towers could have collapsed the way they did without the use of explosives.

Any evidence that this claim is wrong?

[A W Smith]

Where does Bazant prove that collapse could have been triggered without explosives?
right about,,,,,,,,,,,,




here> http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

[ElMondoHummus]

*Sigh*

Bazant's work shows that there's enough potential energy available to cause a collapse to continue all the way the ground once it starts. That's how it eliminates explosives: None would be needed. Once the structure fails in the fire zones, the acceleration of the falling upper parts of the buildings are sufficient to overcome what resistance the columns below provide. Ergo, you don't need explosives because the rest of the structure would already fail due to the amount of momentum already being generated.

Hypothetically, one can argue that Bazant allows for explosives to have been used to start things in the collapse initiation zone. But given that those were the fire and impact zones in both towers (and given that steel was recovered from those areas and show no signs of such use), I'd love to see someone actually make that argument fly. So far, none have.

[sheeplesnshills]

Of course I don't claim to be Sherlock Holmes.

R Mackey comments: "Yet you don't even know what the scientific method is."

Is that the thing you used to claim that WTC7 fell naturally?

Please use the scientific method to show that crush down, then crush up applies to WTC1 as Dr Bazant claims

Do you agree Dr Bazant believes crush down, then crush up applies literally to WTC1?

I could just answer the question for you since I know you won't. Yes. He believes this literally and applies it literally in BLGB.


I've asked before but still have not got a straight answer.......what does it matter if you Bazant and the man in the moon have the exact mechanism of the collapse right?

Whats important is what initiated the event ............I say large plane full of fuel, you say ...............? Lets cut to the chase and stop obsessing of unimportant details.

[Major_Tom]

Carll68, I asked R Mackey: ""Is there any way, by using any of Dr Bazant's arguments about WTC1 in any of his papers, to distinguish between a natural collapse and a CD which takes advantage of ROOSD? "

Saying "no", or quoting the sections from the paper that can be used for such a purpose, would be pretty embarrassing, so instead he gave the 4 point comment you mentioned.

Consider the second point:

2. The closest there has ever been was a belief that only explosives would cause collapses like that.

I'd say this is wrong. The strongest hint that CD occurred on 9-11-01 is that WTC7 fell as if it's columns turned into cooked linguini.

I asked a specific question about a specific paper. He obviously did not answer the question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Carlitos says: "Please calculate the minimal explosives required, including their likely decibel levels. "

Wouldn't you need to know the probable targets first? Let's say we both agree the probable targets would be core columns. How can you even attempt an estimate if you cannot answer the following questions:

1) Were the core columns (CC) around the 98th floor box columns or H beams?
2) Each column section is about 36 ft long, spanning 3 floors. How were the columns connected to each other at that elevation? Were they welded, bolted or both?
3) Were the CC to CC connections for adjacent columns staggered relative to each other, or are the CC to CC connections for all 47 CCs at the exact same elevations?
4) If the connections for all 47 CCs were at the exact same elevations, on which floors are they located around the collapse initiation area.

I'm sure you will agree that blowing the weld of a box column is much louder than doing so for a H beam.

Can you imagine if we were to find that all 47 CCs have bolted connections at the exact same elevation right through the 98th floor, where we all see collapse initiation begin?

So the questions above need to be answered before anyone can attempt to estimate decibel levels.

I know how to answer each of those questions, but I'd like to see you or others from this forum do it first. Some of you may claim to have looked into the matter previously and have ruled out CD based on your research. If you or others here cannot answer them, please let me know by indicating clearly that you do not know the answers.

I won't do your research for you. You claim to have studied the subject before arriving at a conclusion. R Mackey claims to rule out CD by diligent application of the scientific method.

Please tell me the nature and location of the CC connections around the 98th floor, the most likely target of an attack. They are hard questions so I don't judge anyone who cannot answer them. But if you cannot answer them, I doubt if you've seriously looked into the question at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Carlitos, does the quote function in this forum allow a person to quote individual sentences within a post? If so, let me know how. Quotation marks " " have been a standard in literature for a long, long time. Let me know why quotation marks, found in pretty much any book, don't work for you and I'll try to adjust.

[Major_Tom]

Sheeples asks: "I've asked before but still have not got a straight answer.......what does it matter if you Bazant and the man in the moon have the exact mechanism of the collapse right?"

On this point you are right, but please notice how important it is to R Mackey, NB and others. Do you see them admitting some of the more glaring mistakes exist? Why not?

Dr Bazant's papers serve as a type of "Bible" for many people in your own forum. Not to you, but to many of your fellow posters. I agree with you so perhaps your question is best addressed to those who see a perfection in these papers which does not exist.

Why do I press the issue? To expose that Dr Bazant is not perfect and makes some rather absurd arguments which your fellow posters defend with the fervor of a Fundamentalist Christian defending his Bible.

You may see that but they cannot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


A question for Myriad or other moderators: One of the authors of the paper is Frank Greening. I know he was kicked out of this forum. To what degree can I quote him or talk about him in this thread as one of the authors of a paper under discussion?

[DavidJames]

Why do I press the issue? To expose that Dr Bazant is not perfect and makes some rather absurd arguments which your fellow posters defend with the fervor of a Fundamentalist Christian defending his Bible..What did Dr. Bazant say when you contacted him?

[bardamu]

right about,,,,,,,,,,,,




here> http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

Abstract: This paper presents a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of the towers of World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001. The analysis shows that if prolonged heating caused the majority of columns of a single floor to lose their load carrying capacity, the whole tower was doomed.

If?

[funk de fino]

Carll68, I asked R Mackey: ""Is there any way, by using any of Dr Bazant's arguments about WTC1 in any of his papers, to distinguish between a natural collapse and a CD which takes advantage of ROOSD? "

Saying "no", or quoting the sections from the paper that can be used for such a purpose, would be pretty embarrassing, so instead he gave the 4 point comment you mentioned.

Consider the second point:

2. The closest there has ever been was a belief that only explosives would cause collapses like that.

I'd say this is wrong. The strongest hint that CD occurred on 9-11-01 is that WTC7 fell as if it's columns turned into cooked linguini.

I asked a specific question about a specific paper. He obviously did not answer the question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Carlitos says: "Please calculate the minimal explosives required, including their likely decibel levels. "

Wouldn't you need to know the probable targets first? Let's say we both agree the probable targets would be core columns. How can you even attempt an estimate if you cannot answer the following questions:

1) Were the core columns (CC) around the 98th floor box columns or H beams?
2) Each column section is about 36 ft long, spanning 3 floors. How were the columns connected to each other at that elevation? Were they welded, bolted or both?
3) Were the CC to CC connections for adjacent columns staggered relative to each other, or are the CC to CC connections for all 47 CCs at the exact same elevations?
4) If the connections for all 47 CCs were at the exact same elevations, on which floors are they located around the collapse initiation area.

I'm sure you will agree that blowing the weld of a box column is much louder than doing so for a H beam.

Can you imagine if we were to find that all 47 CCs have bolted connections at the exact same elevation right through the 98th floor, where we all see collapse initiation begin?

So the questions above need to be answered before anyone can attempt to estimate decibel levels.

I know how to answer each of those questions, but I'd like to see you or others from this forum do it first. Some of you may claim to have looked into the matter previously and have ruled out CD based on your research. If you or others here cannot answer them, please let me know by indicating clearly that you do not know the answers.

I won't do your research for you. You claim to have studied the subject before arriving at a conclusion. R Mackey claims to rule out CD by diligent application of the scientific method.

Please tell me the nature and location of the CC connections around the 98th floor, the most likely target of an attack. They are hard questions so I don't judge anyone who cannot answer them. But if you cannot answer them, I doubt if you've seriously looked into the question at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Carlitos, does the quote function in this forum allow a person to quote individual sentences within a post? If so, let me know how. Quotation marks " " have been a standard in literature for a long, long time. Let me know why quotation marks, found in pretty much any book, don't work for you and I'll try to adjust.

You do remember there were two towers don't you?

PS WTC7 is nothing to do with the Bazant stuff, what it looks like means nothing when looking at the Twin Towers.

[bardamu]

Any evidence that this claim is wrong?

Bazant relies on NIST's explanation for collapse initiation. Even if you believe that both NIST and Bazant are right, it's wrong to say Bazant's papers on their own prove controlled demolition wasn't necessary.

[beachnut]

Bazant relies on NIST's explanation for collapse initiation. Even if you believe that both NIST and Bazant are right, it's wrong to say Bazant's papers on their own prove controlled demolition wasn't necessary.
LOL, you forgot to read the paper in question. This is super job supporting CD and a big reason no Pulitzer Prizes will be coming 911 truth way.

What engineering school did you guys go to?



This has to be comedy; right? You know Bazant said this in one of the papers sourced by Tom?
the recent allegations of controlled demolition are
baseless.

The evidence proves the delusion of CD false.

The differential equations for ztand ytcan be obtained from
dynamic free body diagrams

In one of the papers, did you debunk the differential equations yet? When did you take a math course with differential equations?

The funniest part of your post will be and is being torn apart below; why do you insist on not reading, not knowing and not caring about facts and evidence, logic and critical thinking?
Bazant relies on NIST's explanation for collapse initiation. ... Why do you post nonsense; you will learn below the first paper done by Bazant was published shortly after 911. Why do research when you can post nonsense?

Classic 911 truth cult member tactic; trying to discredit Bazant's work, which they are not qualified to comprehend, as a means of supporting Tom's nonsensical paper.

[A W Smith]

If?

So?

Where does Bazant prove that collapse could have been triggered without explosives?

A little late to attempt to move the goalposts, Doncha think?

[A W Smith]

Bazant relies on NIST's explanation for collapse initiation. Even if you believe that both NIST and Bazant are right, it's wrong to say Bazant's papers on their own prove controlled demolition wasn't necessary.


And how did he "rely" on NIST's explanation for collapse initiation. on or about 9/13/01?

or even march 2002 for that matter?

[rwguinn]

And how did he "rely" on NIST's explanation for collapse initiation. on or about 9/13/01?

or even march 2002 for that matter?
Time Machines.
NWO Inventory 87-15361AC

[Carll68]

Carll68, I asked R Mackey: ""Is there any way, by using any of Dr Bazant's arguments about WTC1 in any of his papers, to distinguish between a natural collapse and a CD which takes advantage of ROOSD? Blah Blah Blah Yadda Yadda Yadda

.

That is all the farther I was able to get in your post before the fact that you simply were unable to understand the reply typed by Ryan - in what amounts to 3rd grade English comprehension - started to numb my eyes with stupid.

In all seriousness, are you not able to comprehend? Don't answer, you already did answer .....

You and the fraud Rizla2012/Femr2 should study in the same 11th grade physics class together. It certainly would be a big bump for lil' femr2, who is unable to correctly answer a 8th grade physics question -- time and time again.

How is the UFO hoaxing coming along Femrs?

Back on point..I will try to explain - dumb it down if you will - the point Ryan was making:

1) Do you have any evidence, peer reviewed scientific evidence - from anywhere in the free world - that shows explosives were used in the collapse of either WTC1,2 or 7? Not "I looks like a CD" or "It could not have collapsed if it was not a CD"..not speculation..EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES of some sort. Det cords. Residue. Residual effects. Anything verified and peer reviewed

If yes...Please present it.

If No..why not? Then, please see 2

2) There is no, none, nada, zippo, zilch evidence that explosives or any other method of CD was used in the collapse of WTC1, 2 or 7. All you have is belief : "I think looks like a CD so it must have been a CD" ~ "The building would not have collapsed without a CD" etc.

See above #1 if you have evidence.

If not, again ask yourself why not, then move to 3:

3) The Bazant paper (Not 7), and many others, prove beyond any real, true, educated scientific doubt that a CD was not necessary for the towers to fall.

Again, if you have evidence, see #1 above.

If not, ask yourself once more why not, then continue to 4

4) Since there is no evidence of Demolition/Explosives, et.al, and since all you are left with is a belief that the towers could not have collapsed without the use of explosives, and since the Bazant paper and others show that indeed the towers could have (and, in fact, did) collapse without explosives..the subject of explosives is null and void.

I am sure you STILL won't understand.

[Major_Tom]

Beachnut asks: "In one of the papers, did you debunk the differential equations yet? When did you take a math course with differential equations? "

Yes, BV equations 7 and 12 have no value when discussing the towers, though he applies the same equations in BLGB.

When have I taken "a" math course with diff eqs? You have no clue what you are saying, though you are quite proud of your degree.

[beachnut]

Beachnut asks: "In one of the papers, did you debunk the differential equations yet? When did you take a math course with differential equations? "

Yes, BV equations 7 and 12 have no value when discussing the towers, though he applies the same equations in BLGB.

When have I taken "a" math course with diff eqs? You have no clue what you are saying, though you are quite proud of your degree. Proud, Yes my degree gave me something to think about while weeding the 1/4 mile of asparagus. My grand-daddy always said...


This means you have not taken diff eqs?, or you like to attack Bazant's paper because your CD delusion failed?

Not you, not bio, not the person I asked and not femr2 have taken or have the ability to apply differential equations to refute Bazant's work, or support your failed moronic CD ideas based on lies, hearsay, failed opinions and paranoid conspiracy theories. Should have used some of that engineering stink that failed to take at college.

Where did you go to engineering school? Why are you qualified to attack Bazant's paper when you can't support your own? Where did you get your degree, engineer? Ga Tech? Clemson? MIT? Where did you take a course in differential equations? Better google that one.


I know your paper is nonsense and your conclusion is filled with CD delusions. Did you read your own paper yet?

the allegations of controlled demolition to be absurd and leave no doubt that the towers failed due to gravity-driven progressive collapse triggered by the effects of fire. This is cool, you attack Bazant because he calls your ideas absurd. How is your math going?

[Arus808]

sorry, but when someone has been asked repeatedly to use the Quote function and refuses to do so, is someone who isn't worth debating with.

[tsig]

R Mackey asks: "I'm not inclined to explain any further without some reciprocity from you. Third time: You're interested in "controlled demolition" of WTC 1 and 2. Will you follow the scientific method in your study? Yes or no?"

Reciprocity is good. I wasn't avoiding the question.

R Mackey asked: "Will you follow the scientific method in your study? Yes or no?"

I answered: "How would you classify the approach of Sherlock Holmes? If his methodology was considered scientific, good. If not, what methods did he use?"
\>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And mine to you:

1) R Mackey, in a post on page 3 you wrote: " Personally, I like how he seems to think Bazant and Le (2002) is supposed to be an accurate description of the collapse rather than a limiting case, or that he thinks that plus Bazant and Verdure (2006) cover the entire scope of the literature. As if we hadn't explained this to practically every Truther who ever lived a million times each."

Of course you were confusing Bazant and Le with Bazant and Zhao. Do you agree with Dave and Myriad that the crush up, crush down model developed in BV and BL was meant as just a limiting case, or does Bazant believe it really applies to WTC1?


and another...

2) R Mackey, does Dr Bazant believe WTC1 experienced crush down, then crush up as he explains or is the idea of crush down, then crush up just a "limiting hypothetical case in which the structure is best able to resist collapse".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Dave, Myriad and NB have made their opinions clear already. You have not. I need a clear answer from you before I can respond to them.

Could you cite where Dr. Bazant uses that term?

As far as I can see you seem to think that the paper says the top stays intact all the way down then is crushed.

[rwguinn]

Could you cite where Dr. Bazant uses that term?

As far as I can see you seem to think that the paper says the top stays intact all the way down then is crushed.
Hey-
I thin we should be grateful that the truthers are beginning to see that the collapse would propagate regardless of the initiation method. It is a step forward.
Now all they gotta do is come up with the "hushabomb" that was used in their scenario...

[ElMondoHummus]

Bazant relies on NIST's explanation for collapse initiation. Even if you believe that both NIST and Bazant are right, it's wrong to say Bazant's papers on their own prove controlled demolition wasn't necessary.
And how did he "rely" on NIST's explanation for collapse initiation. on or about 9/13/01?

or even march 2002 for that matter?

Mother of God, the truther said what?? http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/facepalm.gif As A W Smith has pointed out: This conspiracy peddler has simply made something up out of thin air.

Date Bazant & Zhou's "Simple Analysis" was published: March 2002
Year NIST report published: 2005
Date NIST was first instructed to conduct an investigation: Aug. 2002

No, Bazant doesn't rely on NIST's explanation. NIST wasn't even involved until later that year. All Bazant's work relies on is the severing of some columns and fires affecting others. And that's it. Everything else is nothing more than an application of engineering principles to the scenario he builds.

It helps to understand what's being criticized. Back on ignore the truther goes.

[bardamu]

The evidence proves the delusion of CD false.

Bazant claims that: "the recent allegations of controlled demolition are baseless", but where has he even tried to prove that fires could have triggered the collapse?



A little late to attempt to move the goalposts, Doncha think?

"If it did" is not the same as "It could have", and in any case saying "It could have" is not proving "it could have".


And how did he "rely" on NIST's explanation for collapse initiation. on or about 9/13/01?

or even march 2002 for that matter?

In 2008:


To explain the collapse, it was proposed (on September 13, 2001; Bazant 2001; Bazant and Zhou 2002) that viscoplastic buckling of heated and overloaded columns caused the top part of tower to fall through the height of at least one story, and then shown that the kinetic energy of the impact on the lower part must have exceeded the energy absorption capacity of the lower part by an order of magnitude. A meticulous investigation of unprecedented scope and detail, conducted by S. Shyam Sunder’s team at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST 2005), supports this explanation.

Where does Bazant prove that viscoplastic buckling caused the top part of the building to fall at least one storey?



No, Bazant doesn't rely on NIST's explanation. NIST wasn't even involved until later that year. All Bazant's work relies on is the severing of some columns and fires affecting others. And that's it. Everything else is nothing more than an application of engineering principles to the scenario he builds.

In other words, up to 2007 he relied on his own speculation, but now he has proof in the form of NIST's model.

[femr2]

It certainly would be a big bump for lil' femr2, who is unable to correctly answer a 8th grade physics question -- time and time again.

Is that the one where I told you the answer was:

It's around 1/1.76 to 0.5 * Fo

...and you replied with...

Wrong answer fake Physics fraud

The thread will break if F=Fo/2.

Took about 10 folk to try and get you to register that multiplying a number by 0.5 is the same as dividing it by 2. They all failed unfortunately. Oh, and the range I suggested is instantaneous load related :) Hope you have progressed since then.

NIST stop at initiation. Bazant et al start after initiation. The actual period of time during initiation requires further clarification.

[Reactor drone]

Carlitos says: "Please calculate the minimal explosives required, including their likely decibel levels. "

Wouldn't you need to know the probable targets first? Let's say we both agree the probable targets would be core columns. How can you even attempt an estimate if you cannot answer the following questions:

1) Were the core columns (CC) around the 98th floor box columns or H beams?
2) Each column section is about 36 ft long, spanning 3 floors. How were the columns connected to each other at that elevation? Were they welded, bolted or both?
3) Were the CC to CC connections for adjacent columns staggered relative to each other, or are the CC to CC connections for all 47 CCs at the exact same elevations?
4) If the connections for all 47 CCs were at the exact same elevations, on which floors are they located around the collapse initiation area.

I'm sure you will agree that blowing the weld of a box column is much louder than doing so for a H beam.

Why are we talking about blowing core columns here? Isn't your theory, a "ROOSD" using minimal explosives, basically a pancake collapse theory involving separation of the floors from the columns?



Can you imagine if we were to find that all 47 CCs have bolted connections at the exact same elevation right through the 98th floor, where we all see collapse initiation begin?

So the questions above need to be answered before anyone can attempt to estimate decibel levels.

I know how to answer each of those questions, but I'd like to see you or others from this forum do it first. Some of you may claim to have looked into the matter previously and have ruled out CD based on your research. If you or others here cannot answer them, please let me know by indicating clearly that you do not know the answers.

I won't do your research for you. You claim to have studied the subject before arriving at a conclusion. R Mackey claims to rule out CD by diligent application of the scientific method.

Please tell me the nature and location of the CC connections around the 98th floor, the most likely target of an attack. They are hard questions so I don't judge anyone who cannot answer them. But if you cannot answer them, I doubt if you've seriously looked into the question at all.

You don't seem to have researched for yourself either, shouldn't you already know this before you try and present a theory about the towers collapse? You may also want to look into what connections you'd need to sever on the other tower as well, or is it your contention that only one tower was demolished (or is that two towers since you seem to have introduced WTC 7 into the argument?).


Carlitos, does the quote function in this forum allow a person to quote individual sentences within a post? If so, let me know how. Quotation marks " " have been a standard in literature for a long, long time. Let me know why quotation marks, found in pretty much any book, don't work for you and I'll try to adjust.

Quoting get the whole post with a handy little link at the top. You can then edit it to remove parts you don't need.

[femr2]

Isn't your theory, a "ROOSD" using minimal explosives, basically a pancake collapse theory involving separation of the floors from the columns?
The ROOSD study does not state that ROOSD itself requires *explosives*. It separates initiation from propogation. It does not prove deliberate initiation (MIHOP), nor natural inititation.

You don't seem to have researched for yourself either, shouldn't you already know this before you try and present a theory about the towers collapse? You may also want to look into what connections you'd need to sever on the other tower as well, or is it your contention that only one tower was demolished (or is that two towers since you seem to have introduced WTC 7 into the argument?).
You should *research* the research of those you suggest have not researched. Too much research going on there, but suggest you spend some time at the911forum.

Quoting get the whole post with a handy little link at the top. You can then edit it to remove parts you don't need.
The quote function removes one side of the conversation. I quite understand why MT prefers to retain both sides manually.

[Reactor drone]

The ROOSD study does not state that ROOSD itself requires *explosives*. It separates initiation from propogation. It does not prove deliberate initiation (MIHOP), nor natural inititation.

Yet Major Tom brings up CD. Why mention it unless you have evidence or at least a theory?

In what way does his papers rule out a CD based on exploiting a ROOSD process?

Where in the Bazant arguments is the possibility of a CD based on ROOSD, exploiting the natural weaknesses of the building with minimal explosives, addressed?

I think you must agree that it is not. True?

Can anyone else find where Dr Bazant proves that this type of CD couldn't happen? Where he addresses it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If not, is it not true that the papers of Dr Bazant are largely irrelevent when considering this type of controlled demolition?

From that post I can only assume that he's developed a theory that involves "exploiting the natural weaknesses of the building with minimal explosives" and yet, when asked to elaborate, he seems to have no idea how much explosive would be needed, nor where it would be placed and seems to show no knowledge of the building structure in the relevant areas.

Basically, since his ROOSD theory, doesn't support his CD hypothesis any better than the Bazant studies all of this seems a rather pointless attempt to smear Bazant's papers.

[Carll68]

Is that the one where I told you the answer was:

It's around 1/1.76 to 0.5 * Fo

...and you replied with...

Wrong answer fake Physics fraud

The thread will break if F=Fo/2.

Took about 10 folk to try and get you to register that multiplying a number by 0.5 is the same as dividing it by 2. They all failed unfortunately. Oh, and the range I suggested is instantaneous load related :) Hope you have progressed since then.

NIST stop at initiation. Bazant et al start after initiation. The actual period of time during initiation requires further clarification.


Nope.

It was the one where you botched the answer.

I don't suppose you would like me to ask it again, here, in from of everyone, would you?

Just say the word fraud.....

How is that collapse model coming along? The one were you put all the energy into an energy sink that crushes the concrete? What's that? It is another fraud by you? Shocking!

Remember how you made a big deal about WTC7 being in free fall for a few seconds...and you could not, for the life of you, figure out why it was? You thought the only way would be if it was a CD!

Go on now loon...tell everyone here about your fantasy of free-fall.

Shall we commence the physics questions?

[femr2]

Yet Major Tom brings up CD. Why mention it unless you have evidence or at least a theory?
So your issue is that you don't think the subject should be mentioned at all then ? The study suggests that ROOSD itself can be self-sustaining (though some numbers are still to be crunched), and highlights possible factors which *could* result in ROOSD following deliberate initiation. The study is not for a single audience. One purpose is to stop some of the claims of floor-bt-floor explosives from other *camps*. You folk seem to have a problem with mentioning that CD is not ruled out. It's not ruled in. Get over it, would be my opinion. You don't think that the suggested MIHOP initiation mechanisms are valid ? Fine. Prove they are invalid. Or ignore that, and simply focus on the ROOSD mechanism itself. There's still some number crunching to do to end up with a model which mathematically matches observables, such as ~14.6s propogation to ground time with terminal velocity reached after ~4s. Perhaps to much focus on *debunking* habits to see the wood from the trees ?

From that post I can only assume that he's developed a theory that involves "exploiting the natural weaknesses of the building with minimal explosives" and yet, when asked to elaborate, he seems to have no idea how much explosive would be needed, nor where it would be placed and seems to show no knowledge of the building structure in the relevant areas.
No, that's your assumption and inference. Once basic agreement on some fundamental factors can be reached, am sure there's no problem with widening the goalposts.

There are problems with some of the Bazant et al content, and folk here are very resistant to making that clear. Time for some progression methinks.

Basically, since his ROOSD theory, doesn't support his CD hypothesis any better than the Bazant studies all of this seems a rather pointless attempt to smear Bazant's papers.
1) What CD hypothesis ?
2) ROOSD is the most probable propogation mechanism post-initiation. Doesn't deal with initiation. Doesn't deal with the core.
3) Bazant et al is full of issues, and they should be clearly understood. Application of *equations of motion* to ROOSD would be quite productive.
4) Smear ? No. Clarify the scope, limitation and inaplicability to certain aspects. Surely you are not one of those folk that would take the Bazant model versions literally ? To do so would be wrong. The mechanisms do not match observables.

[femr2]

Nope.

It was the one where you botched the answer.
I have the entire conversation. Quite happy to quote verbose sections of it to you if you like. lol. Your direct (and very stupid) response to my stated answer to your *question* was posted above. I know *0.5 and /2 can be confusing, but please try to focus on the thread in question, yeah ?

I don't suppose you would like me to ask it again, here, in from of everyone, would you?
Do what you like. Mods might consider it a derail though.

Just say the word fraud.....
Which word ? Joker ?

How is that collapse model coming along? The one were you put all the energy into an energy sink that crushes the concrete? What's that? It is another fraud by you? Shocking!
Wow. Never did understand the meaning of the word *variable* did you.

It's here if you want it...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/load/3-1-0-9
Numerous methods for setting what volume and scale of concrete crush. Always was. Can you get anything right ?

Remember how you made a big deal about WTC7 being in free fall for a few seconds...and you could not, for the life of you, figure out why it was? You thought the only way would be if it was a CD!
I reckon you should explain it :) But again, I think the Mods would consider your attempts to attack *the person* as a derail. Certainly would be considered so in more orderly arenas.

Go on now loon...tell everyone here about your fantasy of free-fall.
Are you suggesting there was NOT freefall during the descent of WTC 7 ?

Shall we commence the physics questions?
Do what you like, but, ooh, again, I reckon you'll be spanked for derailing. You have a wee bit of a problem methinks. Perhaps some anger management would be productive for you ?

I suggest that if you wish to vent your frustrations further, you start a new thread. I may pop in, may not.