Do they? Or do they merely overlap in 2-D?
If a buckled column snaps or detaches at the weld while buckled how can the two ends ever again make contact in 3-D ?
Please explain. You never have so far, despite many requests.
Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world
- Thread starter pgimeno
- Start date
Do they? Or do they merely overlap in 2-D?
If a buckled column snaps or detaches at the weld while buckled how can the two ends ever again make contact in 3-D ?
Please explain. You never have so far, despite many requests.
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
Why don't you try it and see for yourself?
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
Don't blame me for your use of the English language as you actually wrote this. But I am glad to see you finally got it right.
Unfortunately for those like you who have chosen to live in a fairytale land, most engineers come to the realization that the twin tower and bldg. 7 collapses were the results of controlled demolitions after they have actually looked into it. Reality isn't all that hard to take Beachnut. You should try it and stop your whining to try and keep others with you in fairytale land.
Last edited:
Pitiful evasion noted.
If you have tried it you can show us the results. Fire away.
First you wanted to know my name, now you want to know my background. Will you ask me next if I have dual citizenship? My credit card number? My sexual preferences? I suppose you won't ask me my religion if I answer I do have dual citizenship, but if I answer I don't, will you? Will any of the answers affect my arguments, or merely help your despise?
The answer to your question is in the OP.
Is that the only way columns fail in the real world?
Here's a failed column from the 8th floor of WTC 5 (from FEMA 403 chapter 4 p.15):
Imagine that column being further crushed down from the top. Would you expect an axial column-to-column impact at some point?
Is the shown effect on that column obtained in FEA simulations? Will a FEA accurately reproduce the behavior of that column with respect to impact mode?
I never said multi-story buckling, that's once again a preconception of yours to which you seem to be stuck.
Using truther math, 0.001 percent of all engineers is "most". You guys have delusions, and you have delusions about who believes your delusions.
Got a list of engineers signing a statement that WTC1/2/7 are CDs? No!
Write your delusions down and send them to Bazant. Publish Tony, stop telling lies of most engineers believe your idiotic CD delusion, and do something. 9 years ago Passengers on Flight 93 figured out 911 in minutes; you have failed for 9 years. Send Bazant a note and break the inside job wide open.
In 911 truth delusion-land, most = 0.001 percent ; love truther math.
I bet Bazant will call your work nonsense and delusional, exactly like Heiwa's work. When will you write the letter and correct Bazant's model?
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
Knowing someone's real name and background does have something to do with credibility in a discussion.
In this situation dual citizenship might cause a motivation beyond a desire for the plain truth of the matter and might be a conflict of interest. At that point one would need to ascertain what a person's true motivation was from other information. Most people wonder about the other party's motivations when engaged in a debate with them. It is only natural.
Sexual preference and religious affiliation should not cause a conflict of interest on this issue and wouldn't affect one's credibility. Obviously you were joking about credit card number as that does not affect anything.
You seemed to be implying multi-story buckling as you said what mattered was where the upper section was after three stories of the fall concerning any horizontal shift from a tilt.
I say it matters where it was after one story, that the 1 degree or less tilt would not produce a significant horizontal misalignment, and that there would certainly be a significant amount of column on column impact and there would have been a serious deceleration, if the collapse were natural.
The column you chose from WTC 5 isn't representative of what we are discussing.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
What about someones association with a group that has been known to lie and has a known political agenda?
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
It is actually to an extent in so much that the slightest bit of "tilt" means that the load paths carrying through the columns is no longer axial. It introduces moment about the point of "rotation" where the tilt is initiating. In WTC 5 it didn't even take a separation between column ends to do this... It was already misaligned. The result of that is readily apparent in that the whole of the piece is tilted off to the right (meaning you can kiss it's integrity good-bye). Once again, you need to understand where Bazant's model works and where the scope of it ends, you've been told this countless times and it's affecting your responses to other people who are expanding beyond the simplified modeling techniques.
[derail]And a slight shift of topic... Happy Birthday
[/derail]
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
It is actually to an extent in so much that the slightest bit of "tilt" means that the load paths carrying through the columns is no longer axial. It introduces moment about the point of "rotation" where the tilt is initiating. In WTC 5 it didn't even take a separation between column ends to do this... It was already misaligned. The result of that is readily apparent in that the whole of the piece is tilted off to the right (meaning you can kiss it's integrity good-bye). Once again, you need to understand where Bazant's model works and where the scope of it ends, you've been told this countless times and it's affecting your responses to other people who are expanding beyond the simplified modeling techniques.
[derail]And a slight shift of topic... Happy Birthday
With the amount of tilt involved the load would have been mostly axial and the misalignment would have been quite small and would not have precluded a jolt in a natural collapse. I do understand the Bazant limiting case argument some of you guys try to make but it doesn't make a difference to whether or not there should have been a jolt in a natural collapse. There should have been one based on the geometry of the fall and the structure above and below.
Thank you and the others here for the birthday wish.
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
I think that would be a case where one would need to know more about the individual and just what their interaction was with that group, what that group's motivation and agenda was and whether or not that person was involved in any fraudalent information or lying or knew about it and did nothing etc..
What you are talking about here is a complicated situation where one would need to know a lot more about the circumstances to make a judgement. I don't think you can make a sweeping guilt by association verdict and be confident of its accuracy.
Last edited:
What reality based journal has your jolt paper (how does it dovetail with Bazant's model)? Which ones did you submit it to? Happy birthday Tony, happy 9 years of failed opinions on 911 issues. How does your jolt work in with Bazant's paper, and have you written a letter to explain it to Bazant? Your "most" engineer statement was a lie, but it is interesting to note, not one of the "most" engineers has written a paper in a real engineering journal. "most"? Most engineers do not support the CD nonsense - add that to your list of delusions. Will you write your concerns to Bazant?
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
I have written Dr. Bazant explaining my concerns.
When will we see the results? Good job!
ozeco41
Philosopher
Recalling that the OP title is "Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world" can I address Tony's recent post where he makes this important point:
The critical issue is the extent if any of axial contact. And Bazant (in Bazant and Zhou ["BZ"]) makes the assumption which is conservative in the context of the BZ model that there was axial contact between the upper and lower parts of the columns. Tony's "Missing Jolt" hypothesis relies on that axial contact to offer resistance producing a jolt. In the absence of such a jolt Tony concluded (my words to the effect of) "something removed the columns therefore demolition".
Opposing both Tony's position and the Bazant assumption of axial contact I have several times made a bold claim. The latest version being:
Remembering the premise "...there could not be any significant axial contact of column parts..." I will explore each of those options briefly:
The "no demolition" case relies on the premise that the top block is falling so the top parts of columns are already bypassing the bottom parts. It matters not how they got into that relationship. Heat affected buckling as per the recent picture posted by pgimeno, inwards "folding" of the columns pulled inwards by sagging floor trusses. the detail matters not. The key point is that the top bit of column is bypassing the bottom bit. AND there is no mechanism to put the two parts back into axial contact. AND, even if there was, the column ends are near certainly rounded or distorted so that axial transfer of load would cause the two to "slip off". And, for the outer tube columns, that bypassing relationship will continue throughout the collapse. Same goes for core columns but the explanation is more complex.
Now let's look at the demolition case where Tony's jolt hypothesis looks for axial contact and finds it missing. I understand that this is seen to come about because a section of column has been cleanly removed. Possibly by a combination of "cutter" and "kicker" charges thereby leaving a clear gap in the column but with the top bit aligned more or less over the bottom. If I have that wrong Tony can put me right on the actual mechanism he has in mind for his jolt. So, given this scenario and the top block falling we have two possibilities:
Whatever the outcome of discussions of these possibilities I suggest that this thread has:
...and going that far will do me for now.
I agree with that observation up to the last five words which I have put a rule through. The claim "...if the collapse were natural..." does not follow from the preceding. Leave that issue aside for a short while.
The critical issue is the extent if any of axial contact. And Bazant (in Bazant and Zhou ["BZ"]) makes the assumption which is conservative in the context of the BZ model that there was axial contact between the upper and lower parts of the columns. Tony's "Missing Jolt" hypothesis relies on that axial contact to offer resistance producing a jolt. In the absence of such a jolt Tony concluded (my words to the effect of) "something removed the columns therefore demolition".
Opposing both Tony's position and the Bazant assumption of axial contact I have several times made a bold claim. The latest version being:
At that stage I did not elaborate as to what were the two answers to "how did this no axial contact situation arise?" Naturally I had in mind: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:...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.
- No demolition; AND
- Demolition.
Remembering the premise "...there could not be any significant axial contact of column parts..." I will explore each of those options briefly:
The "no demolition" case relies on the premise that the top block is falling so the top parts of columns are already bypassing the bottom parts. It matters not how they got into that relationship. Heat affected buckling as per the recent picture posted by pgimeno, inwards "folding" of the columns pulled inwards by sagging floor trusses. the detail matters not. The key point is that the top bit of column is bypassing the bottom bit. AND there is no mechanism to put the two parts back into axial contact. AND, even if there was, the column ends are near certainly rounded or distorted so that axial transfer of load would cause the two to "slip off". And, for the outer tube columns, that bypassing relationship will continue throughout the collapse. Same goes for core columns but the explanation is more complex.
Now let's look at the demolition case where Tony's jolt hypothesis looks for axial contact and finds it missing. I understand that this is seen to come about because a section of column has been cleanly removed. Possibly by a combination of "cutter" and "kicker" charges thereby leaving a clear gap in the column but with the top bit aligned more or less over the bottom. If I have that wrong Tony can put me right on the actual mechanism he has in mind for his jolt. So, given this scenario and the top block falling we have two possibilities:
- The top block falls the distance of the gap and impacts column on column more or less axially. Would that not produce the jolt which Tony cannot find? OTHERWISE
- To avoid the need for a jolt - all or most of the top portions of cut columns have to miss their lower portion counterparts to ensure that there is no detectable jolt thus matching Tony's findings. How does the demolition scenario cause most columns to fall missing their lower parts?
Whatever the outcome of discussions of these possibilities I suggest that this thread has:
- Identified or clarified limitations of applicabiilty of BZ to the WTC Twin Towers collapse; AND
- Identified where the paper "The Missing Jolt..." relies on parts of BZ which are inapplicable.
...and going that far will do me for now.
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
The column from WTC 5 is not representative of those collapsing over an entire floor such as what would have needed to occur in the collapse of WTC 1 where it uniformly collapsed at the 98th floor.
The columns and beams would still be interconnected during buckling and the rounding you describe at the upper and lower plastic hinges would not cause a light load and slip off. The force of impact would have caused plastic deformation at contact and produced a large deceleration.
My theory, based on observation and measurements, is that at the time the first impact should have occurred the lower portion of the upper section was being broken up by unnatural causes and therefore was unable to apply a shock load. Afterward I think the lower section was being weakened by similar unnatural causes precluding high g impacts and deceleration by the upper section for the nine stories we could measure the fall.
The small amount of resistance observed (0.3g) would be generated by just 10% of the original structure still having some integrity but which only provided 30% of the support necessary for the static load, which then simply fell through it at about 0.7g acceleration.
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
You will have to ask him. He seems to be slow coming around to the reality of the situation like you.
You are full of delusions.
When will you list your most engineers? lol, you are funny; after 9 years of complete failure you continue supporting the failed CD delusion. List the engineers and produce their signature saying they support WTC1/2/7 CD. I recommend not holding your breath. OR, produce any evidence at all to support your idiotic CD delusion. OR, admit you lied about most engineers support your CD conclusion on WTC1/2/7. All the engineers I graduated with don't support your theory; oops, there goes most down the drain.
On topic; how does your jolt super theory dovetail with Bazant's model?
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
At least 95% of engineers I talk to about this, who then do their own research, soon come to the realization that the twin tower and WTC 7 collapses were actually caused by controlled demolition and not as a result of fire and damage. An old colleague of mine even called a few weeks ago to talk about it. He said he had read my papers and after investigating the collapses himself, in other ways, he realized that the collapses were indeed due to controlled demolitions.
Last edited: