Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

[bill smith]

From the footnotes to Bazant and Zhou:
Didn't waste any time did they?

This is not some vague thing- this is real. They produced and made public I presume the first draft two days after 9/11 . I call that foreknowledge in the most friendly of interpretations. Are you saying that it is reasonable to believe that they put together something like that in less than two days ?

The terms of their collaberation as two top professionals would have taken longer than that to work out. 9/11 was a surprise- remember ?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

In fact, properly interpreted, the lack of a jolt is confirmation that there was not (significant if any) column on column axial contact.

And, yes, there are steps of logic needed to complete the picture.
And, ironic though it may be, to that extent Tony's paper would seem to present part of "A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis"

Your first sentence here is a large leap in logic. The inertia of the upper section would have assured there was some column on column impacts. You also shouldn't take things to an extreme on what I have said, as you have seen me say on this thread recently that any random chaotic impact would have produced a deceleration if there was no tampering with the structure. The Verinage demolitions aren't necessarily perfect column on column impacts either.

 

[ozeco41]

This is not some vague thing- this is real. They produced and made public I presume the first draft two days after 9/11 . I call that foreknowledge in the most friendly of interpretations. Are you saying that it is reasonable to believe that they put together something like that in less than two days ?

The terms of their collaberation as two top professionals would have taken longer than that to work out. 9/11 was a surprise- remember ?

Which leads to two possibilities for surmise.

Since I am on the side of the "goodies" - white hat, white horse and two silver six-shooters in the old western paradigm - I go first.

Remember how academic papers are often written. The first named author is the "recognised name" who can get it published whilst the second person named does the hard graft of writing. Then the BZ paper is a massive simplification. And get your names out there quickly. In academic tactics BZ created attraction and paved the way for later papers.

Pure speculation but possible one or the other had previously done some thinking about WTC, on 9/11 said "now why did that happen?" - quick energy calcs - then a phone call to the other one where Zhou calling Bazant seems more likely to me.

Who knows - the full information may be public knowledge and I could be talking through my white (Roy Rogers style) cowboy hat. And I don't ride horses or sing whilst doing so.

The "baddies" side naturally has poor B and Z in the conspiracy with foreknowledge.

 

[bill smith]

Less balanced professional and more debunker I think. Watch and learn Readers.

 

[ozeco41]

Your first sentence here is a large leap in logic.

Thou dost play with words and innuendo/inference Tony.

Going from step one - leaving out the intermediate steps and stating the final step is not a "leap of wrong logic". Merely economy of writing.

Cheers.

 

[carlitos]

Not only "should have been" - his hypothesis relies on it.

Tony's "Missing Jolt" paper is premised on "column on column axial impact" where columns are the only structural elements capable of developing sufficient resistance in one isolated sub-event which would be identifiable as a "jolt". Quoting from Graeme MacQueen & Tony Szamboti "The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis"
...so he takes the extreme case allowed by the assumptions in Bazant & Zhou and builds on it.

That extreme has column on column axial contact. It is valid for B & Z to use it as an approximation - it is on the "safe" side when it finds that there was sufficient energy to allow propagation of the global collapse. It is not valid for Tony to assume it.

Brutal. I have zero engineering background, but from a year or so of discussing this topic, I think I understand the absurdity of this pretty well. How could columns that were tilting at several degrees and rotating have "axial column on column" collisions with any columns below them?

Mr Szamboti, are these indeed your assumptions? Axial column on column impact for many / some / all of the columns? How could this have possibly happened?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Brutal. I have zero engineering background, but from a year or so of discussing this topic, I think I understand the absurdity of this pretty well. How could columns that were tilting at several degrees and rotating have "axial column on column" collisions with any columns below them?

Mr Szamboti, are these indeed your assumptions? Axial column on column impact for many / some / all of the columns? How could this have possibly happened?

Carlitos, you apparently haven't heard that it has been proven in the past year that the upper section of WTC 1 tilted at most 1 degree if at all before descending. At that small angle there is no significant horizontal shift. Do the trigonometry if you don't believe it.

The upper section did not tilt to the 8 degrees NIST mentions until after it descended a few stories.

This has been validated by many people in the last year, so it is a bogus argument that the columns would miss each other due to a tilt.

 

[femr2]

Carlitos, you apparently haven't heard that it has been proven in the past year that the upper section of WTC 1 tilted at most 1 degree if at all before descending. At that small angle there is no significant horizontal shift. Do the trigonometry if you don't believe it.

The upper section did not tilt to the 8 degrees NIST mentions until after it descended a few stories.

This has been validated by many people in the last year, so it is a bogus argument that the columns would miss each other due to a tilt.

Tony,

Whilst I agree that vertical drop of all four corners of the upper section of WTC 1 ensued after only ~1 degree of rotation, I note that you are repeatedly attributing this observation to not only support your position, but also seem to be implying that the folk responsible for determining that metric agree with you.

You know this is not the case.

You also know that achimspok has generated much of the rotation data, with some also provided by myself, along with the visualisation models you have in mind.

You are continuing to treat the building as a rigid entity. It was not.

You are continuing to ignore lateral rotation and even the potential effect of buckling.

Please don't imply your own personal interpretation of information provided to you as being supported by them-there folk, myself in particular.

You are making the same kind of mistakes that others do when applying the Bazant model literally to the towers.

Even with the small initial angle (which of course continued to increase) there is, in my opinion, no logical situation which should result in any significant axial column impacts.

Add to that that core column impacts have to be transmitted through all manner of flexible structure to be traceable at either the NW corner or roofline of the North face and the chances of capturing the kind of *jolts* you are expecting is, in my opinion, not happenin'.

As you also know, we have identified a number of smaller *mini jolts*.

Again, please make it very clear that what you are saying is your own personal interpretation, not one shared by those responsible for determining the metric you are using.

 

[ozeco41]

Brutal. I have zero engineering background, but from a year or so of discussing this topic, I think I understand the absurdity of this pretty well. How could columns that were tilting at several degrees and rotating have "axial column on column" collisions with any columns below them?

It is even more fundamental than that in my explanation. The first step of that logic is to recognise that the top block was moving downwards so there could not be any significant axial contact of column parts.

Recognise that I am drawing a distinct line in the sand to separate the "initial collapse" - the first downwards movement of the top block, from the "global collapse" which followed.

That line is precisely where Tony postulates his "Missing Jolt". The initial collapse has downward movement of the top block and the impact of that with the lower tower to start the global collapse is where Tony looks for a jolt and I say the contact mechanism was not one which would produce a distinct, large, measurable by video scaling jolt. So, as per my previous post:

...it does not call for extraordinary thinking.
Recalling that the precursor condition for your lost jolt is that the top block is falling.

Therefore no column on column contact at that time....

...and therefore considerations of tilt are irrelevant -- but they offer a convenient "red herring" to distract or derail the debate.

The question which then follows is "how did this no axial contact situation arise?" - which has the usual two polarised and opposing answers.

 

[pgimeno]

Carlitos, you apparently haven't heard that it has been proven in the past year that the upper section of WTC 1 tilted at most 1 degree if at all before descending. At that small angle there is no significant horizontal shift. Do the trigonometry if you don't believe it.

The core column sections were three floors high. The relevant tilt angle of the top to consider is not the tilt angle at the start of the descent, but the tilt angle after three floors of descent, which to my knowledge has not been determined. At the start of the release, there could be no axial impact for the simple reason that the columns were initially touching each other.

That alone reveals either Tony's incompetence, dishonesty, or blindness due to wishful thinking, which would be also incompetence.

That exceeds the scope of this thread, though. Tony has me on ignore for the looks of it anyway, but it would be good if someone reminds him when he brings the tilt angle issue again in some other thread.

 

[pgimeno]

This is not some vague thing- this is real. They produced and made public I presume the first draft two days after 9/11 . I call that foreknowledge in the most friendly of interpretations. Are you saying that it is reasonable to believe that they put together something like that in less than two days ?

Something like what? The first paper was just a bit above one page long and just had a couple of simple equations. See http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/404.pdf, short and simple.

The terms of their collaberation as two top professionals would have taken longer than that to work out. 9/11 was a surprise- remember ?

According to the list of publications, [BZ] is from 2002 and the first version from 2001 is attributed to Bazant alone. However, in the paper Yong Zhou is also mentioned. Zhou was a Graduate Research Assistant at Bazant's univ., see footnote 3 of [BZ].

The most likely scenario to me is that the discussion happened in Northwestern University, probably the same day 11, and that Bazant alone (or with Zhou's help) put together the first 1 page draft during the next day, to submit it on 13th. No phone involved in this scenario. Writing a 1-page paper with just two simple calculations like the one in there does not take a team nor weeks of research.

And now, focus.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The core column sections were three floors high. The relevant tilt angle of the top to consider is not the tilt angle at the start of the descent, but the tilt angle after three floors of descent, which to my knowledge has not been determined. At the start of the release, there could be no axial impact for the simple reason that the columns were initially touching each other.

That alone reveals either Tony's incompetence, dishonesty, or blindness due to wishful thinking, which would be also incompetence.

That exceeds the scope of this thread, though. Tony has me on ignore for the looks of it anyway, but it would be good if someone reminds him when he brings the tilt angle issue again in some other thread.

No, I don't have you on ignore. There just hasn't been much I thought worth responding to from you lately. However, I do have to tell you that anyone using a pseudonym really shouldn't take offense if they aren't responded to, as it isn't considered rude to ignore someone who refuses to tell you their name.

As far as what you are saying here, it sounds like you are trying to say the core column buckling took place over three stories. If that is what you are saying, I have to tell you that the horizontal bracing of the core columns at every floor would preclude that from occurring.

The collapse initiation in WTC 1 started quite evenly at the 98th floor and multi-story buckling is not a possibility there. There should have been an impact between the 99th and 97th floors, and there was little to no tilt angle after a fall of one story.

 

[carlitos]

No, I don't have you on ignore. There just hasn't been much I thought worth responding to from you lately. However, I do have to tell you that anyone using a pseudonym really shouldn't take offense if they aren't responded to, as it isn't considered rude to ignore someone who refuses to tell you their name..

I again remind you that we are on a discussion forum, where anonymity is the norm, not the exception, and that your requests come off as you just being creepy.

All that said, this particular poster has told you his name in other threads, and yet you still ask. I can see why he thought you had him on ignore or something. Still, you could perhaps click on the user name, before you level accusations like this. This kind of stuff doesn't enhance the credibility you are attempting to build here.

 

[GlennB]

The inertia of the upper section would have assured there was some column on column impacts.

How? How could a column end ever meet its one-time mate when column breakage is a prerequisite for collapse? The column ends are apart by definition and cannot be re-matched without lifting the upper block.

You have always avoided this question. Have a crack at it one day, eh?

 

[femr2]

it isn't considered rude to ignore someone who refuses to tell you their name.

Bearing in mind that the information (1 degree rotation) was determined by folk who use an online ID, I have noticed that it is only people who do not agree with you whom you demand personal details from.

I'll say this with 100% surety Tony...no matter what *ID* someone uses to present information to you, it does not change the validity of the information. You can agree or disagree, but beyond that identity is utterly irrelevant.

You seem to use it as a way of ignoring what you choose to. Not good.

You have not responded to my request above. If you do not respond, I assume you are ignoring me on the basis of using an ID and therefore should also stop using any information I have provided which you find useful for your own purposes (such as the trace data and core model observations).

 

[pgimeno]

No, I don't have you on ignore. There just hasn't been much I thought worth responding to from you lately. However, I do have to tell you that anyone using a pseudonym really shouldn't take offense if they aren't responded to, as it isn't considered rude to ignore someone who refuses to tell you their name.

What is that fantasy of me "refusing" to tell you my name? All these messages were directed to you (click the small arrow right of "pgimeno" to check the original):

If that matters to you, *my* full name is Pedro Gimeno Fortea. I did some points about the Verinage in message #1112 that you are not addressing at all.

Remember, my full name is Pedro Gimeno Fortea, if that matters to you. You can look it up in my profile now in case you forget.

Just as a reminder, my whole name is Pedro Gimeno Fortea, as I already told you once. It's even stated in my public profile.

Just as a reminder, since you seem to have cared in past and forgotten in past, my full name is Pedro Gimeno Fortea, from Valencia, ES, as you can readily check in my profile.

Tony, are you that forgetful, or are you outright lying? I'd say after so many reminders, your forgetfulness looks quite willful. My name is Pedro Gimeno Fortea, and I live in Valencia, ES. Not that that should have any relevance, but since I don't care to make it public, I'm telling you (again). You even have been unable to associate pgimeno = PGimeno = P. Gimeno = Pedro Gimeno. That's not rocket science, Tony. Your assertion that I'm "refusing" to tell my name means not only that you haven't used my username as an easy mnemonic hint, but also that you haven't even cared to look up my profile to check, making it easy to assume that you're willfully making up your statement in an attempt to either deceive or despise.

Plus, when you say "it isn't considered rude to ignore someone who refuses to tell you their name", you should speak for yourself only, not in general. I consider rude when someone ignores an argument written by anyone, be it anonymous, a pseudonym or a real name. And your contemptuous attitude speaks lots of yourself.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, again, and think that it's just that you have preconceived ideas that you stick to no matter how many times you're proved wrong. Because, you see, that also explains your attitude of willful forgetfulness.

As far as what you are saying here, it sounds like you are trying to say the core column buckling took place over three stories. If that is what you are saying, I have to tell you that the horizontal bracing of the core columns at every floor would preclude that from occurring.

What I am saying is that it's impossible to have axial column-to-column impacts if there is no column base to impact with another column base. The core columns were three floors high, meaning that there were column bases only every three floors, therefore the upper section had to fall three floors before a column-to-column axial impact was ever possible. Evaluating whether the tilt angle at the release point allowed axial impacts is ludicrous, as there was no column base that could impact another column base.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Bearing in mind that the information (1 degree rotation) was determined by folk who use an online ID, I have noticed that it is only people who do not agree with you whom you demand personal details from.

I'll say this with 100% surety Tony...no matter what *ID* someone uses to present information to you, it does not change the validity of the information. You can agree or disagree, but beyond that identity is utterly irrelevant.

You seem to use it as a way of ignoring what you choose to. Not good.

You have not responded to my request above. If you do not respond, I assume you are ignoring me on the basis of using an ID and therefore should also stop using any information I have provided which you find useful for your own purposes (such as the trace data and core model observations).

I am hardly referring to your information in my discussion above, as much of your work is disjointed and nonsensical. Your use of a pseudonym is also problematic. One reason I can think of for that is that it is very possible that numerous people can use the same pseudonym without accountability in any real sense. A real individual would not allow others to speak for him.

It isn't only people who I disagree with as far as my point that pseudonyms reduce the validity of the discussion.

I was referring to measurements taken by Achimspok and David Chandler, both of whom have given their names with Achimspok sharing e-mails using his real name with many involved in this discussion.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

What I am saying is that it's impossible to have axial column-to-column impacts if there is no column base to impact with another column base. The core columns were three floors high, meaning that there were column bases only every three floors, therefore the upper section had to fall three floors before a column-to-column axial impact was ever possible. Evaluating whether the tilt angle at the release point allowed axial impacts is ludicrous, as there was no column base that could impact another column base.

Okay, so you have given your name in your forum information, but I do have to wonder what your background is for you to be saying what you are. Are you an engineer?

If you do a finite element analysis of a buckling column and animate it you will see that the upper and lower ends contact after the scissor closes. The bifurcation (scissors) can only occur between stories due to horizontal bracing.

Your notion of natural multi-story core column buckling during initiation is not supportable and the fact that this is even being argued is ridiculous.

 

[DGM]

<derail>Tony....... Happy birthday tomorrow (you old bastard, from one of the same)</derail>

 

[beachnut]

Funny stuff; tony was the "realcddeal" when he showed up. He quibbles when people destroy his delusions, when he can't figure out their "real" name.

All Engineers, who are not paranoid conspiracy theorists on 911, understand 911 truth's moronic "real cd deal" is nonsense. All engineers, who are not paranoid conspiracy theorists, understand how Bazant's work applies to the real world.

Now known, with solid proof for 9 years, presenting your real name does not make your delusions come true. If you have paranoid delusions of CD, using your real name may require a name change when you discover reality.

If Tony's paranoid name fetish was true, the only people with rational conclusions on 911 would be those with fake names. For me the "realcddeal" will be Tony; when I see his name, I can only see his delusion of cd, the realcddeal.

It was funny the first time I saw it, like a statement, "I don't need evidence", I have the realcddeal. Evidence free for 9 years, the 911 truth cult members (albeit, a group with no real group membership; they all have different nut case ideas based on nothing but junk and fail to comprehend the same) attack Bazant's model and expose their failure. 9 years.

I need them (tony,femr2, majortom) to publish letters to real journals, I miss seeing real engineers, besides myself, using nonsense and delusional to describe 911 truth claims, like Tony's and his buddies pushing the cd delusion past 9 years with no progress, or evidence. Publish NOW! Please.


Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world; the better question is,
Applicability of 911 truth's work to the real world?
Answer is,
NONE!