bje
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,281
Except when videos are inconvenient for you, Heiwa. To wit, you wrote:
Ooops! How are you going to get out of that fix, Heiwa?
RFC: Bazant and Zhou Simple Analysis refuted
- Thread starter GregoryUrich
- Start date
Except when videos are inconvenient for you, Heiwa. To wit, you wrote:
Ooops! How are you going to get out of that fix, Heiwa?
Dave writes:
Dave, Let's take a typical core column: Column 1003. The elements of which are seen below.
This was the actual column, consisting of 42 component column sections connected by welds.
The "top section" consists of the first 5 columns shown welded end to end.
Do you honestly think that if the top 5 sections were rammed into the lower 37 sections, also welded end to end, that this ridiculous "crush up-crush down" phenomenon will take place?
Now let's remember that these sections were seen for the most part perfectly straight and with clean breaks along their welds within the debris.
Which welds do you think will break first in a head-on collision?
The smaller I-beam connections in the top part or the box column welds in the bottom part?
Honestly?
And what meaning will using a spring equation ultimately have if your spring breaks into 30 pieces before plastic distortion occurs on the component parts?
Dave, Let's take a typical core column: Column 1003. The elements of which are seen below.
This was the actual column, consisting of 42 component column sections connected by welds.
The "top section" consists of the first 5 columns shown welded end to end.
Do you honestly think that if the top 5 sections were rammed into the lower 37 sections, also welded end to end, that this ridiculous "crush up-crush down" phenomenon will take place?
Now let's remember that these sections were seen for the most part perfectly straight and with clean breaks along their welds within the debris.
Which welds do you think will break first in a head-on collision?
The smaller I-beam connections in the top part or the box column welds in the bottom part?
Honestly?
And what meaning will using a spring equation ultimately have if your spring breaks into 30 pieces before plastic distortion occurs on the component parts?
Last edited:
Care is being taken to present the strongest, most credible research available;SFT
So I am sure Dr. Frank Legge and Tony Szamboti can help you with your errors! Wait, oops their papers suck.
What about Dr. Kevin Barrett and Dr. Steven Jones, now those guys must be able to fix a few errors and help you even better than I.
If that fails, you always have the smith brothers, they are all proud members of your esteem group. You can use John Smith, or Jimmy Smith, or the John Paul Smith. If they fail you, you can get the trauma nurse John Cox to help you. I have never worked with these guys, but if they see the light of truth and joined the prestigious Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice like you have; you are in like Flynn. By golly you even have Barrie Zwicker to put some icing on your pile of peer review perfection.
Your motto is http://stj911.com/index.html
Rest assured, after reviwing your paper, and the papers at Journal of 9/11 Studies, it is clear it is up to the standard required at Journal of 9/11 Studies. Perfection for 9/11 truth. Where
Take a deep breath and figure it out. There are several good papers on the topics you need to review to complete your work. With some help from your peers at Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice (http://stj911.com/index.html ) you could fix all your errors. Six are just reading your paper real quick. I am sorry, but I do not have access to the experts you have. http://stj911.com/members/index.html
So I am sure Dr. Frank Legge and Tony Szamboti can help you with your errors! Wait, oops their papers suck.
What about Dr. Kevin Barrett and Dr. Steven Jones, now those guys must be able to fix a few errors and help you even better than I.
If that fails, you always have the smith brothers, they are all proud members of your esteem group. You can use John Smith, or Jimmy Smith, or the John Paul Smith. If they fail you, you can get the trauma nurse John Cox to help you. I have never worked with these guys, but if they see the light of truth and joined the prestigious Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice like you have; you are in like Flynn. By golly you even have Barrie Zwicker to put some icing on your pile of peer review perfection.
Your motto is http://stj911.com/index.html
I am positive your peer review paper will be perfect for, http://www.journalof911studies.com/ , Journal of 9/11 Studies; where it will receive the peer review it deserves. I know Journal of 9/11 Studies will do the best it can to help you make your paper as error free as all the papers at Journal of 9/11 Studies can be.
Rest assured, after reviwing your paper, and the papers at Journal of 9/11 Studies, it is clear it is up to the standard required at Journal of 9/11 Studies. Perfection for 9/11 truth. Where
Hyperviolet
Damnum Fatale
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2007
- Messages
- 989
I certainly hope so.Did someone "Stundie" this, because they should...
TAM
As far as i'm concerned, it's an utter triumph.
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
That appears to be the case, and as such I apologize for the implication to Gordon Ross.
I'm still greatly concerned by your 500MJ figure. You thought to challenge Bazant on the mass of the block above, and on the stiffness of the structure below, but not on the energy required to deform the columns, which Bazant based on the same assumptions as the mass and the stiffness. It seems... dishonest to say the least.
You can use the work I've done to easily calculate the plastic bending capacity of the columns with a total cross-sectional area that's greater than what your mass and pe papers state. If its' 114MJ for 30 degree plastic hinges, it's 3 times as much for 90 degree, or 342MJ total (compared to your 500MJ figure). It seems very odd to me that you chose to challenge every one of Bazant's numbers in the basic equation EXCEPT the one that would hurt your conclusion. You could sharpen your pencil and try to determine exactly what it is if you're feeling spry. I state 342MJ, but that is with a cross-section of steel somewhat larger than what you're using.
I've also shown you a more accurate way to calculate the stiffness, C, which comes to be 8.72GN/m for the entire structure starting at the 97th floor and down.
You also seem to have a rather large error in what the cross-sectional area of steel is for the 97th floor. I easily compute it as 6.701m^2. The units of your Ultimate Strength column is Pa/(m^2). It should just be Pascals (N/(m^2)). This would relate to an "Ultimate Strength" of 2680MN.
But let's step back. You show a total weight of 314MN. And your "Ultimate Strength" is 2680MN. That means just prior to plane impact, the steel in the towers had a service Demand-to-Capacity ratio of 0.117. All I can say about that is, no, it is not correct. You have either greatly underestimated the strength and area of steel, or vastly underestimated the total load above (or both). This does not pass the common sense test.
The maximum compressive capacity of the columns is of course not based on the tensile capacity of steel, but the yield stress. These columns will buckle. Lower in the tower they may not, but on the 97th floor, they definitely will.
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,316
Just as I thought. An empty long winded harangue about other people. Stay on topic. Deal with the issues. Or don't you understand them?
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,316
The reason I'm discussing this here, as opposed to a truther forum, is to get honest, critical feedback that can help me avoid mistakes that favor either side of the argument. Notice I am not posting this as fact. It is a request for comment. It's really a shame that I get accused of "truther bias" for any mistakes in that direction.
This is a vaild point. I'll calculate that myself.
This point, while valid, is fairly insignificant, but I will include it.
Correct regaring the units. I use 4.18m^2. Why am I not accused of being a NWO agent? Are you including spandrel steel? Only a dishonest "truther" would do that.
Anyway lets calculate the column cross-sectional area for floor 97:
core columns + perimeter columns = 48.67 x 10^6 kg + 71.40 x 10^6 kg
column steel mass = 120.07 x 10^6 kg
column volume = 120.07 x 10^6 kg / 7850 kg/m^3 = 15.30 m^3
area = 15.30 m^3 / 3.66 m = 4.18 m^2
Using the area above and yield strength, the ("ultimate?") strength is 1050 GN m. So the D/C ratio is 0.308 which is not unreasonable and amounts to a safety factor (design load/actual capacity) between 1.5-3. Seems to add up.
So buckling strength should be used. OK.
GU,
How finely balanced do you think this issue is, with regards to the possibility that the collapse could have progressed or could not have progressed?
Is it an order of magnitude whereby you could say categorically that there is no way on earth those towers could have collapsed without some additional assistance, or is it more of a 50/50 chance that the collapse could have progressed?
The reason I ask is that unless you or someone else can categorically state that the collapse could not have occurred, and that the margin of error for such a claim is too small for there to be any doubt, then you really are not going to be able to provide convincing evidence that something else was responsible for what was seen on that day. If there is the slightest possibility that structural damage and fires caused the towers to collapse then that is what happened because that is what we witnessed.
While this debate is fascinating in terms of the technical expertise of the participants I am inclined to (facetiously) request that when this thread dies, someone here might be prepared to calculate for me the amount of force I need to apply to the lightswitch which controls my kitchen lights, because, while I am perfectly capable of successfully switching them on and off without any problems, I am troubled each time by not knowing just how much effort I need to put into this act. Do you get what I'm saying here?
How finely balanced do you think this issue is, with regards to the possibility that the collapse could have progressed or could not have progressed?
Is it an order of magnitude whereby you could say categorically that there is no way on earth those towers could have collapsed without some additional assistance, or is it more of a 50/50 chance that the collapse could have progressed?
The reason I ask is that unless you or someone else can categorically state that the collapse could not have occurred, and that the margin of error for such a claim is too small for there to be any doubt, then you really are not going to be able to provide convincing evidence that something else was responsible for what was seen on that day. If there is the slightest possibility that structural damage and fires caused the towers to collapse then that is what happened because that is what we witnessed.
While this debate is fascinating in terms of the technical expertise of the participants I am inclined to (facetiously) request that when this thread dies, someone here might be prepared to calculate for me the amount of force I need to apply to the lightswitch which controls my kitchen lights, because, while I am perfectly capable of successfully switching them on and off without any problems, I am troubled each time by not knowing just how much effort I need to put into this act. Do you get what I'm saying here?
it comes down to one floor; the WTC is a system; one floor; when the top fails, if...
I gave you a list and warned you about a few! What else do you want? I give advice as an engineer would to a card carrying truth member. You are saving me by finding the truth.
Go join your 0.00087 percent of all engineers in 9/11 truth. Your new paper is moving your closer to your peers, all 0.00087 percent of all world engineers. Some people will help you find your errors, like the Smith bothers. There sure are a lot of smiths in your group; I wonder if they are… anyway.
I am amazed at how your engineering is slowly becoming more like your peers. Soon you will be in full 9/11 truth panic mode. At least UBL understands impact and fire. You guy in 9/11 truth do not. And at least Robertson does too. Gee, he built the towers and already knows your future paper of no collapse is wrong. I wonder what you missed.
No please, go get help from your peers at the Journal and your 9/11 group of truth. Good luck; it has been 6 years and now your group of truth is entering it's 7th year of false information. Do not tell me I wasted my time recommending your peers to help you.
BTW, when will you know the actual strength of one floor. Not the building section, but a floor? Your stuff is funny as you calculate what? You must come up with how many pounds/force/mass one floor can take at impact. Even just sitting, now many floors/weight can sit on one floor? Your junk is cool, you wasted a lot of time, but you have not stated the mass one floor can hold. What would that be in pounds? One floor; at the impact area. 71,000,000 pounds? 39,000,000 pounds? I think you are trying to model the building cross section and have ignored the problem is just one floor. ?
Give me a break, I looked up some of your peers who could help you find the errors. As seen already people at this forum have helped you the petition signing 9/11 truth group member! They have found errors, I found errors; they shared some ideas with you. I gave you the old fight story and told you to get your peers to help you.
I gave you a list and warned you about a few! What else do you want? I give advice as an engineer would to a card carrying truth member. You are saving me by finding the truth.
Go join your 0.00087 percent of all engineers in 9/11 truth. Your new paper is moving your closer to your peers, all 0.00087 percent of all world engineers. Some people will help you find your errors, like the Smith bothers. There sure are a lot of smiths in your group; I wonder if they are… anyway.
I am amazed at how your engineering is slowly becoming more like your peers. Soon you will be in full 9/11 truth panic mode. At least UBL understands impact and fire. You guy in 9/11 truth do not. And at least Robertson does too. Gee, he built the towers and already knows your future paper of no collapse is wrong. I wonder what you missed.
No please, go get help from your peers at the Journal and your 9/11 group of truth. Good luck; it has been 6 years and now your group of truth is entering it's 7th year of false information. Do not tell me I wasted my time recommending your peers to help you.
BTW, when will you know the actual strength of one floor. Not the building section, but a floor? Your stuff is funny as you calculate what? You must come up with how many pounds/force/mass one floor can take at impact. Even just sitting, now many floors/weight can sit on one floor? Your junk is cool, you wasted a lot of time, but you have not stated the mass one floor can hold. What would that be in pounds? One floor; at the impact area. 71,000,000 pounds? 39,000,000 pounds? I think you are trying to model the building cross section and have ignored the problem is just one floor. ?
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
I'm not sure who you think you're replying to here, but it doesn't seem to be me. I said that the Bazant model was an oversimplification that's strongly biased against collapse propagation compared to reality, and you seem to agree with me while claiming you're disagreeing. Your last paragraph is more or less a paraphrase of my second, which you didn't post. Everything you say seems to imply that collapse was more energetically favourable in reality than in the Bazant model. So what exactly is your point?
Dave
No problems at all. This thread is about GregoryUrich c/ Bazant and you are OT, but I reply anyway. I note with pleasure the absence of many garbish comments in this thread.
The videos of WTC1, real time forensic evidence, evidently do not show a Bazant gravity collapse that, if it would have taken place for the second time in world history (WTC2 was the first), should have taken much longer and looked completely different . Here we all, normal people with average IQ, see that no heated columns buckle, crumble or hinge in the 4000 m² large initiation zone so that potential energy in the tower above can be released.
Potential energy release is the official (only) proximate (nearest before) cause of collapse in combination with lack of strain energy in the remainder structure.
But anybody with good eyes can see that the perimeter columns in the initiation zone are intact so that no potential energy is released above, so, logically, strain energy below is of no importance, etc.
It seems on the other hand that the whole tower above the initation zone with intact perimeter columns explodes prior to released potential energy contacts the initiation zone followed by alleged collapse below as if it was hit by a bomb. This everybody can see.
Nist seems to have backed down about the 'release of potential energy' and now (FAQ Decemebr 2007) suggests that 6 -11 floors above dropped down into the initiation zone (no heated, crumbling, hinging or buckling columns) and overloaded a floor there, so that this floors then dropped down and caused ... global collapse!! I cannot see any evidence for that on any video.
I have therefore (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ) kindly recommended Nist to review the conclusion about 'release of potential energy' as cause of global collapse (still awaiting a reply) and clarify the dropping floors theory.
Kind regards
Heiwa
PS - thanks for reminding me that I have in another thread doubted that WTC1 would have been hit by a plane 80+ minutes before alleged release of potential energy with remaining, intact perimeter columns. We can discuss that in that thread.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
No, Heiwa. We normal people see the photographs in which the perimeter columns are bending inwards, and in the Trinity Church video we can very clearly see them buckle, crumple and hinge as the collapse initiates. It's only those who refuse to see this that have a problem.
Dave
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
I just pulled the number straight from your spreadsheet without seeing that it included spandrel steel. This changes the stiffness to 8.27. Regarding the stiffness, are you sure you want to use the entire tower? You could compute the speed of the elastic wave in the steel based on the time it would take to strain the steel to 0.2%. This will drastically increase the stiffness of the spring.
Regardless, using your mass, the correct cross-sectional area, Eplastic of 342MJ and a stiffness of 8.27GN/m, I get an overload ratio of about 2. Then again, I'm not so hot at arithmetic
Your Eplastic figure is very important in this calculation and reasonably should be dropped. To assume the columns undergo 90 degree plastic hinges is a little absurd. Especially considering 1/3 of the columns on that floor will have a splice point at a plastic hinge. That splice will not rotate, it will fracture immediately absorbing almost no energy.
Last edited:
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
1. definition of garbish again heiwa?
2. if you are normal with average IQ it says little for average IQ and how obviously above average most of the peple i know are
3. Your eyes need tested
4. i cannot see it
if you watch the videos and look at all available photographs and are seriously claiming you cannot see the columns buckling inwards then i say you are a liar
you are spoiling this thread, which has good potential, with your buffoonery
Dave asks:
Dave, I have many arguments against the original assumtions in the Bazant model.
I'll present each argument as explicitly as I can.
Argument #1:
Let's consider the head-on collision after a 12 foot fall of a typical core column, Column 1003, shown below.
In the case of the North Tower, Bazant's "upper block" portion of the column will only be the first 5 I-beam sections shown in the diagram above connected end to end.
The largest and strongest 37 column sections shown, connected end to end, constitute the ""lower block".
Now we ram the two parts together.
We know that the large, large majority of core box columns failed at weld connections before suffering any permanent distortion.
Just based on the principle that bigger tends to be stronger, where would you think the first weld breakage would occur just after impact?
Wouldn't the welds in the "upper block" tend to fail first?
Bazant requires that the upper block be comically rigid.
If you remove the assumption of rigid, Bazant has no model.
Argument #2: During the "collapse" of the North Tower, a "spire" was seen to stand well after the rest of the building had collapsed.
This spire was photographed from at least 5 different angles, and so it is not too difficult to identify which core columns these are.
I and a few friends have identified these columns as 701 through 706 and 801 through 806, proof shown below.
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...er_op=view_page&PAGE_id=11&MMN_position=23:23
Let's take a look at the diagram below to see where column rows 700 and 800 were situated.
Notice that they are the 2 innermost column rows.
Most of the columns in these 2 rows were seen standing, unsupported, more than 50 stories high for a good 15 seconds after the rest of the building had completely collapsed.
Also note that in the diagram above the relative sizes of column cross-sections are fairly accurate. It is a sub-level 2 cross-sectional view. Note how the 700 and 800 columns are among the WEAKEST in the core. Note how columns in rows 500 and 1000 are the STRONGEST in the core.
The question is: How can anyone model the collapse of the core on progressive weld failures occuring naturally (without "help") which leave the columns in the center 2 rows of the core standing unsupported for more than 50 stories?
Dave, I have many arguments against the original assumtions in the Bazant model.
I'll present each argument as explicitly as I can.
Argument #1:
Let's consider the head-on collision after a 12 foot fall of a typical core column, Column 1003, shown below.
In the case of the North Tower, Bazant's "upper block" portion of the column will only be the first 5 I-beam sections shown in the diagram above connected end to end.
The largest and strongest 37 column sections shown, connected end to end, constitute the ""lower block".
Now we ram the two parts together.
We know that the large, large majority of core box columns failed at weld connections before suffering any permanent distortion.
Just based on the principle that bigger tends to be stronger, where would you think the first weld breakage would occur just after impact?
Wouldn't the welds in the "upper block" tend to fail first?
Bazant requires that the upper block be comically rigid.
If you remove the assumption of rigid, Bazant has no model.
Argument #2: During the "collapse" of the North Tower, a "spire" was seen to stand well after the rest of the building had collapsed.
This spire was photographed from at least 5 different angles, and so it is not too difficult to identify which core columns these are.
I and a few friends have identified these columns as 701 through 706 and 801 through 806, proof shown below.
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...er_op=view_page&PAGE_id=11&MMN_position=23:23
Let's take a look at the diagram below to see where column rows 700 and 800 were situated.
Notice that they are the 2 innermost column rows.
Most of the columns in these 2 rows were seen standing, unsupported, more than 50 stories high for a good 15 seconds after the rest of the building had completely collapsed.
Also note that in the diagram above the relative sizes of column cross-sections are fairly accurate. It is a sub-level 2 cross-sectional view. Note how the 700 and 800 columns are among the WEAKEST in the core. Note how columns in rows 500 and 1000 are the STRONGEST in the core.
The question is: How can anyone model the collapse of the core on progressive weld failures occuring naturally (without "help") which leave the columns in the center 2 rows of the core standing unsupported for more than 50 stories?
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Major Tom,
Firstly, your entire approach here is bizarre. You're trying to dispute my assertion that the Bazant model is oversimplified by claiming that the Bazant model is oversimplified. This is what's known as "being in violent agreement".
Secondly, your AutoCAD analysis of the spires isn't as conclusive as you claim, in that the lineup of columns for rows 500-600 is clearly as good a fit to the photographs as the lineup for rows 700-800; in fact, going by the most clearly visible columns it's actually a better fit. That would then mean that the tallest surviving column is one of the four corner columns from the core, hardly a counter-intuitive result.
Dave
Firstly, your entire approach here is bizarre. You're trying to dispute my assertion that the Bazant model is oversimplified by claiming that the Bazant model is oversimplified. This is what's known as "being in violent agreement".
Secondly, your AutoCAD analysis of the spires isn't as conclusive as you claim, in that the lineup of columns for rows 500-600 is clearly as good a fit to the photographs as the lineup for rows 700-800; in fact, going by the most clearly visible columns it's actually a better fit. That would then mean that the tallest surviving column is one of the four corner columns from the core, hardly a counter-intuitive result.
Dave
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,316
Where's the list?
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,316
Dave, do you have a link to the Trinity Church video?
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,316
I just pulled the number straight from your spreadsheet without seeing that it included spandrel steel. This changes the stiffness to 8.27. Regarding the stiffness, are you sure you want to use the entire tower? You could compute the speed of the elastic wave in the steel based on the time it would take to strain the steel to 0.2%. This will drastically increase the stiffness of the spring.
Regardless, using your mass, the correct cross-sectional area, Eplastic of 342MJ and a stiffness of 8.27GN/m, I get an overload ratio of about 2. Then again, I'm not so hot at arithmetic
Your Eplastic figure is very important in this calculation and reasonably should be dropped. To assume the columns undergo 90 degree plastic hinges is a little absurd. Especially considering 1/3 of the columns on that floor will have a splice point at a plastic hinge. That splice will not rotate, it will fracture immediately absorbing almost no energy.
The splice is between floor 98 and 99, where the columns become approximately 15-20% thinner. So are we assuming the upper floor will fail first?