RFC: Bazant and Zhou Simple Analysis refuted

[GregoryUrich]

Jumping back a little here... Mr/ Dr (whatever) Urich, do you maintain it is acceptable procedure to say "well, some of the photos look like such-and-such"? In the same discussion as highly technical engineering data and calculations?

I suspect apples and oranges. The one, very impressionistic piece of information (I don't say evidence) is used to support and extend actual technical calculations.

Guys, I'm from the humanities. In my research I would be extremely careful about mixing this way. Has it now become the norm in engineering?

I've suggested myself that it would be good if Major Tom could generate some statistics to which I would add documenting his method. I won't do it myself because I don't have time and I have been through enough photos (100s if not 1000) to form an opinion. Even if there was as many as 10% buckled columns (there aren't) it still shows that columns didn't buckle on a floor by floor basis. This is useful information.

 

[Heiwa]

Wrong, the whole upper block moved as one block after the heat weakened columns in the area of floor 98 failed under the gravity load. It was funneled into the lower block at collapse initiation. The upper block then impacted the floors inside the lower block one after the other while accelerating. That would be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc down to bottom. In videos of the WTC 1 collapse you can se parts of the exterior walls of the lower block still standing for a moment or pivoting out of the dust cloud after the upper block has passed.

Sorry - I cannot see that the whole upper block moves as one block.

Particularly not after the heat allegedly weakened columns in the area of floor 98.

Where does upper block impact? At floor 98? How much did it fall prior impact? One floor? 3.7 meters?

What happened to the columns between floor 98 and floor 99? Where did they disappear when they buckled?

At floor 98, which is above the center of impact which was at floor 94-96 in North wall, all columns - core and walls - are 100% intact after impact and just prior collapse.

Videos show clearly that the fuel at impact burnt for only 15 seconds in a big fire ball. After that there were only small fires ... and not a big one at floor 98.

The compressive stresses in the columns just prior collapse are very small! Less than 30% of the yield/buckling stress. The columns are spread out on an area of 4000 m² - the windows are all open - smoke escapes and cool air is sucked in. It is not very hot up there - particularly not at the outside walls that carry most of the gravity load - 65% according NIST.

NIST suggests the core sags down first because some core columns at floors 95-96 may be damaged but it does not cause an impact.

I can simply not understand why all 236 wall and 47 solid core columns would collapse simultaneously at floor 98 - particularly when it is not seen on any videos. With so low compressive stresses!

I see in slow motion the roof moving down when the low stressed wall columns at floor 98 are still intact.

Does anybody say that the core collapsed before the walls?

NIST says that the core was unloaded 20% before collapse because of some load transfer.

But still the compressive stresses in the columns were very small, no floors had disconnected from the columns so the horizontal supports were mainly intact.

Under those circumstances no column can buckle. And I see no columns buckle.

And if no columns buckle there can be no falling down or impact of a block falling down on structure below.

Quite simple actually. What you see on the videos is not a block falling down followed by an impact.

 

[Major_Tom]

So the idea is that 38 foot columns form a 3 point buckle only along 12 feet of the length.

I have never seen a single column that has that appearance.

The Bazant model suggests that 50%+ of the columns exhibit this behavior.


Since this paper was formulated only 3 days after the event, before the clean-up even began, don't you think that the investigators would look for some of the columns that were so severely damaged?

After 6 years, can anyone show me just 2 of the 50%+ core columns that show this damage pattern?

Please show me just two 3 point buckes on damaged core columns in the rubble.


You have almost nothing in the rubble that supports the initial assumtions on the Bazant model.

50%+ instantaneous and simultaneous failure and you can't show me an example?


In the model, collapse initiation is the biggest mystery. Collapse initiation has always been the biggest mystery.

And yet the investigative bodies simply overlook collecting damaged columns from these areas of the buildings?

 

[Arus808]

major tom, why dont you file a FoIFA request so that you can go down the to the FRESH KILLS dump and find out for yourself?

 

[rwguinn]

Can you support that statement? I can support these factors of safety. We have the information.

Nonsense.
You are looking at components of a system, saying "look! this is piece by itself is stronger than the system as a whole is defined, therefore the system is greater than advertised".
To say"The core has a SF of 3 and the perimeter has a SF of 5" is simply fuzzy thinking. It is the system that we are worried about.
And when beams (a generic term) take loads they are not designed for, the interface that it has with the rest of the structure is going to die!
No part of a column in the Tower never, under any normal circmstances, saw a tension load before 9/11.That is because they were never put in bending, until normal load paths disappeared, and suddenly an individual beam is being forced to bend. Even though the total load is compressive, the outer fibers of the joint are now in tension within the single beam, and loading fails the joint-before the actual beam can buckle.
This usually is accompanied by a loud "Snap" or "Clang", and collapse. There is little if any time delay between load onset and the "snap"

 

[Norseman]

Sorry - I cannot see that the whole upper block moves as one block.

Gravy made this video especially for you and your denial of the realities of the WTC 1 collapse:

Particularly not after the heat allegedly weakened columns in the area of floor 98.

Where does upper block impact? At floor 98? How much did it fall prior impact? One floor? 3.7 meters?

What happened to the columns between floor 98 and floor 99? Where did they disappear when they buckled?

At floor 98, which is above the center of impact which was at floor 94-96 in North wall, all columns - core and walls - are 100% intact after impact and just prior collapse.

The columns initially stayed attached to the upper and lower block respectively when they buckled and broke off from each other.

Here especially for you column 210 from the area of floor 98 in WTC 1, one of the samples that were saved for further study in the clean up process:

It looks a little bit overloaded, doesn't it. You can read more about this column in NIST NCSTAR 1-3C and 1-3.

Videos show clearly that the fuel at impact burnt for only 15 seconds in a big fire ball. After that there were only small fires ... and not a big one at floor 98.

The compressive stresses in the columns just prior collapse are very small! Less than 30% of the yield/buckling stress. The columns are spread out on an area of 4000 m² - the windows are all open - smoke escapes and cool air is sucked in. It is not very hot up there - particularly not at the outside walls that carry most of the gravity load - 65% according NIST.

You have been shown this photo before Heiwa:

Do you call this a small fire. The fires on the upper floors of WTC 1 and 2 were so big that it was beyond any fire department in the world to put them out. Even with the elevators working and water available it would haven impossible to put out does fires. You are looking at a picture of several 4000 m2 floors burning.

NIST suggests the core sags down first because some core columns at floors 95-96 may be damaged but it does not cause an impact.

I can simply not understand why all 236 wall and 47 solid core columns would collapse simultaneously at floor 98 - particularly when it is not seen on any videos. With so low compressive stresses!

I see in slow motion the roof moving down when the low stressed wall columns at floor 98 are still intact.

Once again the collapse initiated on the south side, the side with that big fire and those inward bowing exterior columns in the picture above. When those columns failed the loads were transfered to the next column on the east and west side, which then failed and so on to the north side. This concept is not exactly rocket science Heiwa.

These are facts that have been pointed out to you repeatedly by both me and other posters on this forum.

Goodbye!

 

[GregoryUrich]

Nonsense.
You are looking at components of a system, saying "look! this is piece by itself is stronger than the system as a whole is defined, therefore the system is greater than advertised".
To say"The core has a SF of 3 and the perimeter has a SF of 5" is simply fuzzy thinking. It is the system that we are worried about.
And when beams (a generic term) take loads they are not designed for, the interface that it has with the rest of the structure is going to die!
No part of a column in the Tower never, under any normal circmstances, saw a tension load before 9/11.That is because they were never put in bending, until normal load paths disappeared, and suddenly an individual beam is being forced to bend. Even though the total load is compressive, the outer fibers of the joint are now in tension within the single beam, and loading fails the joint-before the actual beam can buckle.
This usually is accompanied by a loud "Snap" or "Clang", and collapse. There is little if any time delay between load onset and the "snap"

So the Tower never swayed in the wind...or did it do that independently of the core?

 

[Newtons Bit]

So the Tower never swayed in the wind...or did it do that independently of the core?

I think he's talking about beam elements and core columns. I think...

 

[Major_Tom]

When discussing the collapse initiation of WTC 2, einstein noted:

Dave, did you notice those rows of squibs, the distance between them is not exactly the distance of a story, but much more, I've noticed that also for a couple of other movies that I synchronized in time. This is a big contradiction for the theory that these are caused by falling floors. The same appears at the other side of the building in spite of the fact that the block topples, the floors cannot enclose the amount of air. The first row is above the mechanical floors, the 2nd is in the mechanical floors and the third below. There are a couple of other things also that doesn't fit the official story.

From the point of view of the CD idea of attacking the weld locations this is what we would expect to see.

The following images map the first two strong "dust" ejections as being separated by 3 floors. The welds in this location are also separated by 3 floors.

The video clip from which this was taken is at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COpfvXj_BVo



The largest initial ejections being separated by 3 floors is what a person would expect from attacks accross the first 2 weld planes.

Please recall that all 47 core columns have their welds at the exact same elevations, separated by about 38 feet.

Therefore a simultaneous attack on the 500 column row accross one weld plane followed by a second simultaneous attack on the next lower weld plane would look something like what we actually see.


Floors crushing other floors wouldn't look like this.

 

[DGM]

When discussing the collapse initiation of WTC 2, einstein noted:



From the point of view of the CD idea of attacking the weld locations this is what we would expect to see.

The following images map the first two strong "dust" ejections as being separated by 3 floors. The welds in this location are also separated by 3 floors.


[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911_math/WTC2_3floors.jpg[/qimg]


The video clip from which this was taken is at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COpfvXj_BVo



The largest initial ejections being separated by 3 floors is what a person would expect from attacks accross the first 2 weld planes.

Please recall that all 47 core columns have their welds at the exact same elevations, separated by about 38 feet.

Therefore a simultaneous attack on the 500 column row accross one weld plane followed by a second simultaneous attack on the next lower weld plane would look something like what we actually see.


Floors crushing other floors wouldn't look like this.

Along with the HUGE BANG and the spray of glass that covers all of Manhattan. Any other bright ideas?

 

[Norseman]

The forces of nature

I keep a separate photo album of all core box columns I encounter that show bending and distortions at

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=photoalbum&PHPWS_Album_op=view&PHPWS_Album_id=3

Major Tom, not a single one of all the columns in the photos you have gathered show any sign of damage by explosives whatsoever. They do only show damage that are to be expected in a gravity driven collapse like the WTC towers. Like twisting, bending, buckling etc. Here are some examples of what the forces of nature can do to steel structures.

Tornado damage:

ALL BUILDINGS, VEHICLES AND
POSSESSIONS AT THE FARM APPEARED TO BE A TOTAL LOSS. THE HOME WAS LEVELED AND SWEPT AWAY. VEHICLES WERE THROWN THROUGH THE AIR FOR SOME DISTANCE, TWISTED, AND WRAPPED AROUND TREES. METAL TRUSSES FROM OUTBUILDINGS WERE WRAPPED AROUND MACHINERY. GRAIN BINS WERE TORN APART AND PIECES LODGED AND TWISTED IN TREES.

Source
Photo gallery showing the damage described above:
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/bou/severe/jul18_tor/jul18_tor.php
Especially noteworthy photos in the gallery are the steel beam wrapped around the tractor and the steel beam beside the car. Looks familiar doesn't it? But yet no bombs, just a tornado. You would need a tremendously big bomb to replicate the damage seen in those pictures.

At this page you will find 4 photos of steel roof structures that have been destroyed by a typhoon, scroll to find them:
http://www.naga.gov.ph/tabang/category/images-typhoon-reming/

What a snow avalanche can do to a steel guardrail.
http://www.piste-off.com/equipment-and-technical/avalanche.asp
Wonder what a steel and concrete avalanche can do?

Do not underestimate the forces of nature, they are merciless masters.

 

[Norseman]

The video clip from which this was taken is at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COpfvXj_BVo

Floors crushing other floors wouldn't look like this.

Major_Tom thank you for illustrating so well a point I was thinking about making a post on in this thread.

Do you notice how the dust ejections are aligned with the tilt of the upper block. So what you call "Lower explosion" in the right hand picture above, is just the east exterior columns of the upper block crushing the floor spans on the east side of the lower block. As you can see in the picture the west side of the upper block has not yet arrived at that level. But the exterior columns of the upper block on the east side have. This is what I call self debunking Major Tom.

 

[Corsair 115]

Floors crushing other floors wouldn't look like this.

And how do you know that? What's your basis for that opinion?

 

[Major_Tom]

Norseman notes:

Do you notice how the dust ejections are aligned with the tilt of the upper block. So what you call "Lower explosion" in the right hand picture above, is just the east exterior columns of the upper block crushing the floor spans on the east side of the lower block.

Crushing the floor spans? It is a good thing you folks have Dave. He at least tries to make sense.

How do I know that? If these are separated by 3 floors, there are 2 floors in between, no? Floor by floor crushing doesn't skip a few floors.

 

[twinstead]

How do I know that? If these are separated by 3 floors, there are 2 floors in between, no? Floor by floor crushing doesn't skip a few floors.

You have no idea what's going on inside those buildings.

 

[Gravy]

So the idea is that 38 foot columns form a 3 point buckle only along 12 feet of the length.

I have never seen a single column that has that appearance.

The Bazant model suggests that 50%+ of the columns exhibit this behavior.

You have repeatedly been told that Bazant's model is a simplification that is extremely conservative in favor of no global collapse: yet in that model there is more than enough energy in the falling mass to bring the collapse to the ground.

Major Tom, is there anything about this that you do not understand? If not, then do not bring it up again. You seem to think you gain points by mindlessly repeating your favorite mantras here. That's not how learning works.

 

[Norseman]

Crushing the floor spans? It is a good thing you folks have Dave. He at least tries to make sense.

How do I know that? If these are separated by 3 floors, there are 2 floors in between, no? Floor by floor crushing doesn't skip a few floors.

What else do you think should happen when the upper block is funneled inside the lower block? Are you unable to visualize the upper block as an more or less intact structure inside the lower block, destroying floors and pushing the exterior walls of the lower block outwards. Do you notice that the upper block is tilting slight to the south also. In other words the south east corner is lower than the north east corner of the upper block.

If you go back to the video you posted and watch the slow motion part of the sequence the pictures you used were taken from, you should notice how your "Lower explosion" moves in perfect alignment with the movement and tilt of the upper block. It starts at the south east corner and moves north to the north east corner. That is because the SE corner of the upper block is the first part of the upper block to break through the floor at that level.

As the floor is collapsed enormous amounts of air and dust is pushed out of the windows. You know, each floor contained nearly 15 000 cubic meters of air. That is what you see in the video.

 

[Newtons Bit]

You have repeatedly been told that Bazant's model is a simplification that is extremely conservative in favor of no global collapse: yet in that model there is more than enough energy in the falling mass to bring the collapse to the ground.

Major Tom, is there anything about this that you do not understand? If not, then do not bring it up again. You seem to think you gain points by mindlessly repeating your favorite mantras here. That's not how learning works.

What he is still failing to get, is that the splices cannot handle any rotation. A hinge develops near the splice, the splice fails before there's any large amounts of rotation involved in the column itself. And by large, I mean easily visible from a picture.

 

[Norseman]

Major Tom, this is a picture of a column that survived an earthquake in japan.

http://www.daido-it.ac.jp/~doboku/miki/pic/t101.jpg
Original context with links to more pictures

When the ground shook the inertia of the road structure on top of the column put a tremendous bending strain on the lower part of the column, just where the weld connection is. Compare the damage on this column to the damage on this column from the World Trade Center, that you claim shows bomb damage:

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/core3.jpg
Look at Example 7 for Major Tom's use of it (the pictures are above the text).

Looks similar doesn't it? In fact that column of yours just shows the effect of being bent in the collapse of the WTC towers, and nothing else.

 

[rwguinn]

I think he's talking about beam elements and core columns. I think...

NONE of the columns ever saw a tension load anywhere. The weight (downforce) on them was greater than any tension a wind load could develop.
Think of bolt preloading.