• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

femr2 said:
I assume you mean AE911T, and must say you seem awfully obsessed with them. Perhaps you should contact them rather than spamming every one of your posts with references to them.
Click to expand...

It may be dangerous to keep opening the portal into that alternative reality where Gage's mind got stuck.
 
femr2 said:
Of course, but I see absolutely no significant core destruction being caused by resonance.

Here's a collection of core videos...

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=DE95AAC394319BA5

...please feel free to specify one which supports your theory.


Again, please feel free to specify video in which such can be seen.
Click to expand...

Number 3, zoomed in shows the core columns moving relative to each other, in differnt directions. This seems to me more characteristic of mechanical resonance than with being shoved around at the bottom.

Nevertheless, the core remannt (wtc1) did not *fall apart*. It moved laterally to the west, then descended vertically, as evidenced in the collection of videos I provided you with above.
Click to expand...

And some parts of the core are seen dropping almost straight down after having oscillated for a couple of seconds.
 
This seems to me more characteristic of mechanical resonance than with being shoved around at the bottom.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but it seems to me that suggesting the cores of WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed, not by descending mass, but resonance, is a teensy bit ridiculous, and more in-line with the likes of Judy Wood than Bazant.

And some parts of the core are seen dropping almost straight down after having oscillated for a couple of seconds.
Click to expand...
No. As I said, in general core moves west, then descends vertically. No significant oscillation.

For your theory, you'd have to find some way of determining high frequency movements.

I suggest you start a thread on the subject. I think you're quite wrong.
 
femr2 said:
Sorry, but it seems to me that suggesting the cores of WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed, not by descending mass, but resonance, is a teensy bit ridiculous, and more in-line with the likes of Judy Wood than Bazant.


No. As I said, in general core moves west, then descends vertically. No significant oscillation.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're looking closely enough. There are oscillations and pieces falling off in different directions.
 
Hey Tony,

I just noticed this gem...

Tony Szamboti said:
Another engineer and I did the calculations for a main double truss at high temperatures with a standard floor load and found that even at 700 degrees C the deflection is only about 2 inches.

700 degrees C is as high a steel truss temperature as NIST could credibly claim.
Click to expand...

Please share your calculations, Tony.

I'd like to see exactly how you calculated the creep.

Tony Szamboti said:
To get the sag to go to 40+ inches NIST invokes the nebulous notion of creep.
Click to expand...

LMAO…??!!!

The "nebulous notion of creep", Tony??

Are you for real?
Did you get your degree from a matchbox?

Here ya go, Tony. Some nebulous fantasies about creep.

A comparison of alternative creep force models for rail vehicle dynamic analysis

Damage Modeling For Prediction Of Plastic Or Creep Fatigue-failure In Structures

Prediction of creep failure in aeroengine materials under multi-axial stress states

An experimental study of room-temperature rate-sensitivity, creep and relaxation of AISI type 304 stainless steel

… plus 26,000 more tech references to creep in materials

No wonder you got 2 inches of deflection.

You're oblivious to a basic material property that all competent mechanical engineers know well: creep.

You really ought to look it up.

Keep you from making these silly, embarrassing statements.


tom
 
Last edited:
femr2 said:
Sorry, but it seems to me that suggesting the cores of WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed, not by descending mass, but resonance, is a teensy bit ridiculous, and more in-line with the likes of Judy Wood than Bazant.


No. As I said, in general core moves west, then descends vertically. No significant oscillation.

For your theory, you'd have to find some way of determining high frequency movements.

I suggest you start a thread on the subject. I think you're quite wrong.
Click to expand...
.

What do you mean by 'the core moves west' ? Is that all of the core or just a part ?
 
tfk said:
Hey Tony,

I just noticed this gem...



Please share your calculations, Tony.

I'd like to see exactly how you calculated the creep.



LMAO…??!!!

The "nebulous notion of creep", Tony??

Are you for real?
Did you get your degree from a matchbox?

Here ya go, Tony. Some nebulous fantasies about creep.

A comparison of alternative creep force models for rail vehicle dynamic analysis

Damage Modeling For Prediction Of Plastic Or Creep Fatigue-failure In Structures

Prediction of creep failure in aeroengine materials under multi-axial stress states

An experimental study of room-temperature rate-sensitivity, creep and relaxation of AISI type 304 stainless steel

… plus 26,000 more tech references to creep in materials

No wonder you got 2 inches of deflection.

You're oblivious to a basic material property that all competent mechanical engineers know well: creep.

You really ought to look it up.

Keep you from making these silly, embarrassing statements.


tom
Click to expand...

He got 2" of deflection because he didn't include things like thermal stress and material failure. Creep is probably too advanced of a concept.
 
bill smith said:
What do you mean by 'the core moves west' ? Is that all of the core or just a part ?
Click to expand...
The remnant drops in basically two sections...east and west. The west-side moves west before descending vertically, in a trapezoid-like motion I imagine. Haven't traced it yet.
 
Newtons Bit said:
He got 2" of deflection because he didn't include things like thermal stress and material failure. Creep is probably too advanced of a concept.
Click to expand...

Actually I think it's even simpler than that. He got 2" because that was the answer that suited his preconceived opinion.

Just look at any of his analyses - 'missing jolt' as an example. He simply selects a few factors which suit the desired outcome and ignores the rest. Standard MO.

For example he sets up the strawman for missing jolt in the sixth paragraph of the paper "The rigidity of the upper block of stories is crucial to this explanation. If the upper block were to break, disintegrate or flow on impact it would certainly not threaten the 92 intact floors beneath it." Utter nonsense naturally and, from that point, he totally ignores what actually happened to WTC1 on 9/11.

Pure thermal expansion would be enough to buckle those trusses before we even consider the "fancier stuff". :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
There has never been a system on the planet which will give you wrong answers, faster & with more conviction, than a computer & FEA program in the hands of an amateur.

It is impossible to tell much of anything about the competence of that piece of work. But I am massively skeptical.

I don't know who that person is. I don't know how much experience he has with FEA. My strong suspicion is "young & not much". Guys my age don't post our results on YouTube.

The main reason I say this is his "explanation" (20 - 30' descent of one large section of the core), strikes me as absurd. I don't know of any evidence to support it, and I can think of several reasons that it would be highly implausible.

Plus, it seems plainly unnecessary.



tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom