Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

[Tony Szamboti]

As I said Tony I will not fall for truther tricks:

The extraordinary claim that WTC Towers collapse must match the characteristics of the Verinage demolition technique is your claim. Not mine.

It is not my burden to disprove the claim. Rather it is your burden to prove it. I note that once again you are not prepared to address the simple facts of WTC 9/11 collapse which I have posted.

There are no truther tricks going on here. That is silly nonsense.

There is also nothing extraordinary about my claim. A natural impact always causes a deceleration of the impacting object and that is what occurred in the Verinage demolitions and what should have occurred in WTC 1, if it were a natural collapse.

The fact that the upper section of WTC 1 never decelerates is a very serious problem for the present official story. The story is broken because it could not and did not happen the way they want to say it did. I can't help but say that it seems that not even all the kings horses and all the kings men can put the story back together again, not even Dr. Bazant.

 

[carlitos]

Just for sake of comprehension, may I ask what your definition of a "natural collapse" is?

The World Trade Center towers 1 and 2 had planes loaded with jet fuel impact them at high floors. Any resultant collapse doesn't seem "natural" to me.

Thanks.

 

[excaza]

Just for sake of comprehension, may I ask what your definition of a "natural collapse" is?

The World Trade Center towers 1 and 2 had planes loaded with jet fuel impact them at high floors. Any resultant collapse doesn't seem "natural" to me.

Thanks.

Not natural = whatever is necessary to overcome his incredulity that airplanes could cause global collapse. CD/Laser Beams/Romulans/etc.

btw, your sig is hilarious

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Just for sake of comprehension, may I ask what your definition of a "natural collapse" is?

The World Trade Center towers 1 and 2 had planes loaded with jet fuel impact them at high floors. Any resultant collapse doesn't seem "natural" to me.

Thanks.

I am speaking of the collapse continuation process here. So here the term natural collapse is used to mean that there would have been no assistance from demolition devices after any form of initiation. In all natural cases an amplified load is needed and that process is caused by deceleration, which is absent in WTC 1, and may also be absent in WTC 2, but its radical tilt prevents its measurement.

I don't understand why you seem to think the plane impacts could contribute to anything more than a collapse initiation.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Not natural = whatever is necessary to overcome his incredulity that airplanes could cause global collapse. CD/Laser Beams/Romulans/etc.

btw, your sig is hilarious

Believing that WTC 1 could collapse naturally without a significant deceleration during its fall is actually in the same boat with believing in space beams, Romulans, no planes, etc.

There is no proof provided for any of those notions or any real science behind them, just silliness and blind faith.

 

[femr2]

The fact that the upper section of WTC 1 never decelerates is a very serious problem

Yee gads Tony.

So you are saying that the upper section of WTC 1 descended at *freefall* during the time it was visible ?

And you are also saying that later in descent, the *crush front* terminal velocity identified is also a figment of imagination ?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Yee gads Tony.

So you are saying that the upper section of WTC 1 descended at *freefall* during the time it was visible ?

And you are also saying that later in descent, the *crush front* terminal velocity identified is also a figment of imagination ?

It is hard to understand how your mind could possibly translate the wording "never decelerates" into "freefall acceleration".

WTC 1 came down at about 2/3rds the rate of gravity and it never decelerated.

 

[excaza]

Oh wow...

It there's no upward force, there's no possible way for it to fall at anything but free fall. You need to get your physics checked.

Seriously, that's like...day 1. It makes sense now why you can't answer anything about your stupid use of Lagrangian.

 

[femr2]

It is hard to understand how your mind could possibly translate the wording "never decelerates" into "freefall acceleration".

Just trying to get to the root of the problem Tony...

WTC 1 came down at about 2/3rds the rate of gravity and it never decelerated.

So why was it 2/3rds of G, not G ?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So why was it 2/3rds of G, not G ?

It seems about 10% of the original structural integrity was left over which could only support about 1/3rd of the weight above it and would fail due to gross yielding and fracture allowing the static load to fall through it at 2/3rds g.

 

[beachnut]

It is hard to understand how your mind could possibly translate the wording "never decelerates" into "freefall acceleration".

WTC 1 came down at about 2/3rds the rate of gravity and it never decelerated.

So? Why would it decelerate? The fact is the towers fell at a rate you calculate with simple momentum transfer. Built into that model are many times the overall velocity is set back due to mass gain. Your jolt is built into the collapse, you can't measure it due to the complex impacts. This is where there real world smooth things out so to speak.

9 years of failure, Bazant is right, you got delusions of CD.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So? Why would it decelerate? The fact is the towers fell at a rate you calculate with simple momentum transfer. Built into that model are many times the overall velocity is set back due to mass gain. Your jolt is built into the collapse, you can't measure it due to the complex impacts. This is where there real world smooth things out so to speak.

9 years of failure, Bazant is right, you got delusions of CD.

The real world does not smooth out jolts. Every single Verinage demolition shows a deceleration in its measured descent. If WTC 1 were able to naturally collapse without a significant and observable jolt it would be a severe exception to the rule.

Bazant was only right to initially believe there would have to be a jolt since that is what it would take for a natural collapse to occur. However, he never measured the descent to see if there was one. It turns out there isn't one and it means the collapse of that building was not due to natural causes.

The aircraft impacts were nothing but causal ruses because the real evidence shows that the buildings were rigged prior to Sept. 11, 2001 and demolished using demolition devices. The cat is out of the bag on this Beachnut, and neither you or any others who refuse to believe those collapses were staged are going to be able to put it back in.

 

[GlennB]

If you notice he didn't say the hinges don't form, but that they might develop fractures. That will also have no effect on whether a jolt would occur or not.

Yes it will. Because column ends that are fractured while hinged can never make axial impact with their fractured mate, by definition. The next thing they will hit is certain to be a floor pan or other horizontal member. This is the entire point that many of us have been making for weeks now.

Something quite similar to Dr. Bazant's representation, that you were kind enough to show here, is precisely what I would draw.

The diagram represents a 1-D view. If we view Bazant's diagram as 2-D where the thickness of the line represents the thickness of the material, then we have material occupying the same physical space at the 'scissor' hinge half way down. So that won't do in the real world, obviously.

I'm asking you to draw a 2-D view of a column at the moment of impact between the hinged ends.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The diagram represents a 1-D view. If we view Bazant's diagram as 2-D where the thickness of the line represents the thickness of the material, then we have material occupying the same physical space at the 'scissor' hinge half way down. So that won't do in the real world, obviously.

I'm asking you to draw a 2-D view of a column at the moment of impact between the hinged ends.

Then we can consider the location of horizontal members and whether there was a weld in the buckled length under consideration.

Your point here doesn't make sense to me. 2-D is length and width, which Bazant's diagram has. It sounds like you want a 3-D diagram, but I still don't see your point, as it won't affect whether the upper and lower hinge areas will impact.

I also don't think you understand what Bazant meant by fracturing in buckling columns. It sounds like you believe they will break in half with each half going its separate way. That isn't what Bazant would have meant there.

 

[GlennB]

Your point here doesn't make sense to me. 2-D is length and width, which Bazant's diagram has. It sounds like you want a 3-D diagram, but I still don't see your point, as it won't affect whether the upper and lower hinge areas will impact.

I was editing while you posted ....

 

[beachnut]

causal ruses, aircraft impacts? lol

The real world does not smooth out jolts. Every single Verinage demolition shows a deceleration in its measured descent. If WTC 1 were able to naturally collapse without a significant and observable jolt it would be a severe exception to the rule.

Bazant was only right to initially believe there would have to be a jolt since that is what it would take for a natural collapse to occur. However, he never measured the descent to see if there was one. It turns out there isn't one and it means the collapse of that building was not due to natural causes.

The aircraft impacts were nothing but causal ruses because the real evidence shows that the buildings were rigged prior to Sept. 11, 2001 and demolished using demolition devices. The cat is out of the bag on this Beachnut, and neither you or any others who refuse to believe those collapses were staged are going to be able to put it back in.

Crazy ideas; wow, are you ... wow

You have delusions of CD. And then more delusions.

The buildings were not rigged prior to 911, and the fires would cook off explosives and render fuse inop. Failure for your fantasy bad men.

Bazant has the decent correct and he is published; you are wrong and you are not published. Gee, you lost this because you are wrong. And if you can't prove it by publishing a paper, you lost again in the future.

The building falls in the time as a momentum model shows, very closely. The model has velocities changing as more mass is added on each floor. But this is in the model. The actual collapse is not neat floor on floor horizontally hitting, but uneven and chaotic. You are wrong, and you have failed to publish anything to make your moronic CD lies come into the real world.

Why can't you publish your work in a real journal? lol, failure is yours; going for 10 years? Do you have problems that keep you from making rational conclusions?

because the real evidence shows that the buildings were rigged prior to Sept. 11, 2001

Please list your real evidence; another lie by you! Post it! lol

 

[GlennB]

Your point here doesn't make sense to me. 2-D is length and width, which Bazant's diagram has. It sounds like you want a 3-D diagram, but I still don't see your point, as it won't affect whether the upper and lower hinge areas will impact.

It's impossible to draw a 1-D diagram in black+white. The line would be invisible. Even in Bazant's diagram we see an overlap of material at the scissor, as I mention above.

I'm asking you to produce a true 2-D diagram of the buckled column at the moment of impact, which will involve a curved end to the 'scissor', not a 1-D "V" shape. You appear curiously reluctant to do this, although I imagine it's a few minutes for work for an architect/engineer type.

I also don't think you understand what Bazant meant by fracturing in buckling columns. It sounds like you believe they will break in half with each half going its separate way. That isn't what Bazant would have meant there.

Ah OK. What would he have meant then? That the 180° buckle at the 'scissor' end would split somewhat but remain partially connected?

 

[Disbelief]

The real world does not smooth out jolts. Every single Verinage demolition shows a deceleration in its measured descent. If WTC 1 were able to naturally collapse without a significant and observable jolt it would be a severe exception to the rule.

Tony, how much more mass would an object have to have to have no discernible jolt? For example, if I drop a bowling ball on a dixie cup, the bowling ball will have virtually no deceleration and no measurable jolt. (Note, I am NOT comparing this to the Towers in any way, just trying to get the concept.) Is this correct?

 

[Oystein]

It seems about 10% of the original structural integrity was left over which could only support about 1/3rd of the weight above it and would fail due to gross yielding and fracture allowing the static load to fall through it at 2/3rds g.

Can the top of your skull yield a 16-ounce hammer, resting on top?
I think we agree on "yes". In fact I just tried that on my skull, and it caused no trouble.

Can the top of your skull yield a 16-ounce hammer after a fall of, say, 6 feet?
If you think yes, please demonstrate and upload the video on youtube.
If you think no, please explain why suddenly your skull can't yield 16 ounces. Would you say that somehow had removed 90% of the original structural integrity of the skull while the hammer was being lifted?

ETA - followup: If that first hammer had broken up a few more hammers along a longer fall of several times 6 feet, and all of them now crushed on several skulls, would you expect the several skulls to be able to resist several hammers that fell several times 6 feet?

 

[Oystein]

The real world does not smooth out jolts. Every single Verinage demolition shows a deceleration in its measured descent. If WTC 1 were able to naturally collapse without a significant and observable jolt it would be a severe exception to the rule.
...

Has Verinage ever been done with 15 or 30 floors above initiation zone?
What happens if Verinage is initiated with an initial tilt of the upper floors?
What happens when Verinage is not done on a reinforced-concrete-structure, but on a steel-frame tube-in-tube design?
What happens if Verinage is done on a steel-frame tube-in-tube design with an initial tilt andd 15 or 30 floors above initiation floor?

Why do you think Verinage would still look the same it does when you only have 4 or 6 reinforced-concrete floors with no tilt above?

Tony, honestly: You only imagine there would still be an observable jolt, right?