In response to some comments of mine in another thread Jango issued this challenge:
I started to explain in line but the OP new thread is more appropriate so let's start the process here:
My Objective - to explain the cascade failure process of WTC1 and WTC2 "initiation stage" up to the point where the Top Block was falling AND ROOSD/Three Mechanisms progression was under way.
I will not be addressing CD claims which means that I must allow for CD options in the mix of contributors to collapse. The understanding of cascade failure is not affected whether or not there was CD. (Think about that before (any of) you ask :))
And at least note my "Procedural Ground Rule #1" :)
My Procedural Ground Rules:
1) It will be my explanation. Not relying on NIST, Bazant or any other authority;
2) My objective for this stage of discussion process will be that you (Jango) comprehend the form of "cascade failure" which initiated the collapses of both Twin Towers;
3) I will leave the possibility of CD in the mix to avoid pre-emptive strikes from either "side";
4) I will start from known facts which should be points of agreement;
5) I will progress in steps - advancing to the next step once we agree on the current step;
6) My process will include explanation of some aspects of engineering which are critical to progress of the cascade failures and which are commonly misunderstood in these discussions;
7) I will be looking for agreement and understanding of the points I make - not vaguely stated or more global counter assertions which are not specifically directed at the points I am making; AND
7) It will be qualitative - not quantitative.
So those are my ground rules - is there anything you (Jango) want clarified?
Step One - Defining and Agreeing the Scenario.
The overall scenario for collapse initiation extends from "aircraft impact" through to "Top Block" falling bodily. The sequence and key points being:
A) Aircraft Impact caused damage and started fires;
B) Damage accumulated as a consequence of fires and any CD which may have been performed;
C) The damage increased to the stage where the "Top Block" started to descend bodily;
D) We may need the intermediary step of "Point at which remaining columns are no longer able to support top block". (Which led immediately to failure of all those columns which has survived to that point.)
E) Top Block descending bodily marks the end of our interest for this topic. (I will take it to the point where "ROOSD" driven progression is under way.)
Do you (Jango) agree those five identify/scope the scenario? Do you (Jango) have any you want to add to define the scenario?
Once we agree those scenario and starting point factors I would go on to explain:
P) The failure is in vertical load carrying - vertical load carrying is the function of columns - failure of columns is therefore the main contributor to collapse initiation - and we have two main reasons for failure viz (i) cutting by impact or CD and (ii) failure in axial overload.
Q) Understanding the balance of factors in failure by axial overload- that is the one place where temperature will be relevant and it is a column by column specific balance of factors. (But we dont need to know the details for every column...we only need generic understanding.)
R) Concepts of "load redistribution" which are central to cascade failure - including why they must be understood in 3D and why load redistribution does not proportionately follow the proportion of already failed columns.
Those will do as starters. Without doubt we will identify more as discussion progresses.
Are you (Jango) comfortable with:
X) The procedural basics - I will be presenting my explanation NOT responding to other person’s ideas of their own explanation; AND
Y) The starting points for the scenario?
Your turn Jango. ;)
PS - add this in somewhere - "As I progress I will identify common misunderstandings which my explanation should help correct. I'll make them anonymous - without fear or favour to which side the errors come from." :)
PPS Added the (Jango) bits to make my primary focus more obvious in this OPed new thread - my comments in the original thread were a response to Jango so the explicit clarity was not needed. Others who care to join in please recall that Jango is my primary audience and my focus will be on my explanation - not discussion of other people's concepts.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jango (Post 10652675)
It would be a welcomed occurrence to be casually "walked-through" the technical aspects because as I've said before, my hang up is the initiation sequence, such as, What Had To Fail To Cause The Global Collapse.
|
My Objective - to explain the cascade failure process of WTC1 and WTC2 "initiation stage" up to the point where the Top Block was falling AND ROOSD/Three Mechanisms progression was under way.
I will not be addressing CD claims which means that I must allow for CD options in the mix of contributors to collapse. The understanding of cascade failure is not affected whether or not there was CD. (Think about that before (any of) you ask :))
And at least note my "Procedural Ground Rule #1" :)
My Procedural Ground Rules:
1) It will be my explanation. Not relying on NIST, Bazant or any other authority;
2) My objective for this stage of discussion process will be that you (Jango) comprehend the form of "cascade failure" which initiated the collapses of both Twin Towers;
3) I will leave the possibility of CD in the mix to avoid pre-emptive strikes from either "side";
4) I will start from known facts which should be points of agreement;
5) I will progress in steps - advancing to the next step once we agree on the current step;
6) My process will include explanation of some aspects of engineering which are critical to progress of the cascade failures and which are commonly misunderstood in these discussions;
7) I will be looking for agreement and understanding of the points I make - not vaguely stated or more global counter assertions which are not specifically directed at the points I am making; AND
7) It will be qualitative - not quantitative.
So those are my ground rules - is there anything you (Jango) want clarified?
Step One - Defining and Agreeing the Scenario.
The overall scenario for collapse initiation extends from "aircraft impact" through to "Top Block" falling bodily. The sequence and key points being:
A) Aircraft Impact caused damage and started fires;
B) Damage accumulated as a consequence of fires and any CD which may have been performed;
C) The damage increased to the stage where the "Top Block" started to descend bodily;
D) We may need the intermediary step of "Point at which remaining columns are no longer able to support top block". (Which led immediately to failure of all those columns which has survived to that point.)
E) Top Block descending bodily marks the end of our interest for this topic. (I will take it to the point where "ROOSD" driven progression is under way.)
Do you (Jango) agree those five identify/scope the scenario? Do you (Jango) have any you want to add to define the scenario?
Once we agree those scenario and starting point factors I would go on to explain:
P) The failure is in vertical load carrying - vertical load carrying is the function of columns - failure of columns is therefore the main contributor to collapse initiation - and we have two main reasons for failure viz (i) cutting by impact or CD and (ii) failure in axial overload.
Q) Understanding the balance of factors in failure by axial overload- that is the one place where temperature will be relevant and it is a column by column specific balance of factors. (But we dont need to know the details for every column...we only need generic understanding.)
R) Concepts of "load redistribution" which are central to cascade failure - including why they must be understood in 3D and why load redistribution does not proportionately follow the proportion of already failed columns.
Those will do as starters. Without doubt we will identify more as discussion progresses.
Are you (Jango) comfortable with:
X) The procedural basics - I will be presenting my explanation NOT responding to other person’s ideas of their own explanation; AND
Y) The starting points for the scenario?
Your turn Jango. ;)
PS - add this in somewhere - "As I progress I will identify common misunderstandings which my explanation should help correct. I'll make them anonymous - without fear or favour to which side the errors come from." :)
PPS Added the (Jango) bits to make my primary focus more obvious in this OPed new thread - my comments in the original thread were a response to Jango so the explicit clarity was not needed. Others who care to join in please recall that Jango is my primary audience and my focus will be on my explanation - not discussion of other people's concepts.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1KUeruY
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire