Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

[Dog Town]

Wtf does this mean?

You have been given answers, by quite patient people. Pay attention!

 

[carlitos]

And then, even in static conditions, you have an *upper block*, which weighs FAR more than one floor can support, resting on one floor (slab).
It fails.

Repeat.

I added one word to the above. Perhaps that will help. I defer to more eloquent posters to further elaborate.

 

[DGM]

Pay attention!

 

[ergo]

And then, even in static conditions, you have an *upper block*, which weighs FAR more than one floor can support, resting on one floor.

It fails.

Repeat.

Actually, I missed the obvious error in this statement, which I've now bolded. This statement would suggest that the building was never able to hold itself up!

 

[DGM]

Actually, I missed the obvious error in this statement, which I've now bolded. This statement would suggest that the building was never able to hold itself up!

Did you miss the word "floor"?

 

[carlitos]

The World Trade Center towers 1 and 2 were never able to hold themselves up unless the vertical columns were connected to each other and lined up correctly. Very good.

 

[ergo]

You have been given answers, by quite patient people. Pay attention!

Da bunker anti-science or crap science that says that only one floor of a building holds the rest of the building up and that collision forces are unidirectional is not an answer. It's stupidity.

 

[ergo]

The World Trade Center towers 1 and 2 were never able to hold themselves up unless the vertical columns were connected to each other and lined up correctly. Very good.

So then, the now misaligned columns of both upper and lower blocks pierced through the 4" concrete floors/ceilings of both upper and lower blocks. Now what?

 

[carlitos]

With apolopies to femr2 for modifying and repeating. (slab) added by me.

And then, even in static conditions, you have an *upper block*, which weighs FAR more than one floor can support, resting on one floor (slab).

It fails.

Repeat.

 

[ergo]

Da bunker joke:

"Hey guys, I just wrote a book called 'Global Collapse Ensues'! It's a real quick read. There are no pages!"

 

[ergo]

Originally Posted by femr2
And then, even in static conditions, you have an *upper block*, which weighs FAR more than one floor can support, resting on one floor (slab).

It fails.

Repeat.

With apolopies to femr2 for modifying and repeating. (slab) added by me.

Carlitos, this doesn't answer the question. You state that one floor of the lower block can't support the weight of the upper block. This means that the lower floor of the upper block also can't sustain the weight of the upper block. This would have to collapse too. Right? If not, what happens?

 

[pgimeno]

You have been given answers, by quite patient people. Pay attention!

He failed to do so for 26 pages. Why would anyone think this time will be different?

 

[ergo]

Same crap answers in that thread, pgimeno. It's all the same discussion. Show that the NIST/Bazant model is supported by laws of physics. You can't do it. Not in this thread, nor in that one. Every time a question is asked, you give your ignorant answers or you change the topic or start some diversion.

Please apply Newton's three Laws of Motion to the Bazant/NIST WTC collapse model. Just do it.

 

[beachnut]

Same crap answers in that thread, pgimeno. It's all the same discussion. Show that the NIST/Bazant model is supported by laws of physics. You can't do it. Not in this thread, nor in that one. Every time a question is asked, you give your ignorant answers or you change the topic or start some diversion.

Please apply Newton's three Laws of Motion to the Bazant/NIST WTC collapse model. Just do it.

Did it! Bazant's model complies with Newton's laws. Your point? You don't do physics. Got it.

 

[carlitos]

Carlitos, this doesn't answer the question. You state that one floor of the lower block can't support the weight of the upper block. This means that the lower floor of the upper block also can't sustain the weight of the upper block. This would have to collapse too. Right? If not, what happens?

What would be awesome is if you could present a Free Body Diagram that illustrated the forces at work. Then we wouldn't need semantics.

 

[femr2]

The "one floor" trope is a misconception propagated among the anti-science crowd. It is not just one floor holding up the upper block, as any structural engineer will tell you.

I keep asking you questions which should help you to *get there* without me being rude to you. I'll continue to try...

What EXACTLY do you think is *holding up the upper block* ?

a) Core columns.
b) Perimeter columns
c) Floor truss assembly connected to core and perimeter (with connections which do not change throughout the height of the tower, excepting a few special floors).

it is not just the one lower floor of the upper block holding the rest of the upper block up.

Correct. The floor assembly is *stuck onto* the core and perimeter columns. You have previously included the probability that the core columns *punched through* the floor slab. Same applies to perimeter.

The floor assemby is only designed to hold a small multiple of its own weight.

It is the entire construction of both upper and lower blocks that are holding the higher floors above the lower floors.

It is the core and perimeter columns that support the mass. The floors were always simply hanging off of them, like a hammock.

Your "one floor" theory is bunk.

Please read and understand the above, then try that again.


btw - Folk here will no doubt gladly tell you I'm a MIHOP'er, twoofer, whatever... I don't like the monikers, but am indeed skeptical of each descent event. What I'm saying is not difficult to get your head around, but it DOES require at least understanding the structure you are talking about. Look at the structure, understand it, then read what is being said. Eat some humble pie. Just don't take too long.

 

[pgimeno]

Same crap answers in that thread, pgimeno. It's all the same discussion. Show that the NIST/Bazant model is supported by laws of physics. You can't do it. Not in this thread, nor in that one. Every time a question is asked, you give your ignorant answers or you change the topic or start some diversion.

Please apply Newton's three Laws of Motion to the Bazant/NIST WTC collapse model. Just do it.

See here, p.917.

 

[ergo]

See here, p.917.

I'll look at this more closely and respond to the best of my ability, but it appears that this is another instance where Bazant is allowed to have the last word on the subject (while doing a drive-by slur against the credentials of the critic). It's interesting to note that Bazant is also a member of the review panel of this peer-reviewed journal. Boy, are they going to be embarrassed when he gets turfed.

It's always Bazant, isn't it? And he's usually referencing himself to back up his bizarre notions.

 

[twinstead]

btw - Folk here will no doubt gladly tell you I'm a MIHOP'er, twoofer, whatever... I don't like the monikers, but am indeed skeptical of each descent event. What I'm saying is not difficult to get your head around, but it DOES require at least understanding the structure you are talking about. Look at the structure, understand it, then read what is being said. Eat some humble pie. Just don't take too long.

mmmmm...... Pie......

 

[DGM]

mmmmm...... Pie......

As we all know, femr2 likes to eat his "pie" one pixel at a time. It's all good.