RFC: Bazant and Zhou Simple Analysis refuted

tfk said:
Absolutely, laughably ridiculous.

Coming from any one, much less an alleged mechanical engineer...

Pssst, Tony, those are "generic curves" taken from generic columns mounted into an Instron type compression tester. They are not the specific curves drawn for any specific column in the towers, joined in the various ways that external & core columns are spliced.

Or do you think that the curves for thin wall box columns (external wall) will be the same as for a different sized thick wall box columns (core box columns) and the same as for I beams (core columns) bent in either the I or the H direction??

Pssst, Tony, the load carrying capacity goes to EXACTLY zero if ANY ONE of the connections in a column stack from the ground to the crush floor fails.

The load carrying capacity goes to EXACTLY zero if any column in the stack forms a sharp crease at any point along its length. Because, at that point, even ductile carbon steel, when formed into a 14" or larger box column or similar sized I beam, is virtually certain to fracture.

Cripes, the litany of asinine statements...
Click to expand...

I looks like all you are able to say anymore is

blah blah, blah blabbety blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blabbety blah.

This is generally what finally happens when someone continues trying to stand up an absurd, incorrect, and erroneous theory in the face of superior evidence to the contrary.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
For some reason it looks like all you are able to say anymore is

blah blah, blah blabbety blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blabbety blah.

This is generally what finally happens when someone is trying to stand up a lie.
Click to expand...

Another incompent response. No surprise.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Lately your responses have been so terse and tepid, that if I didn't know better I would say "it almost sounds like you are jealous Mr. A#@#!#@".
Click to expand...

But where are you hiding your mathematical rebuttal of Bazant's model? Are you going to use the same math Major Tom used in his book? What did Bazant say about your claims?
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
I looks like all you are able to say anymore is

blah blah, blah blabbety blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blabbety blah.

This is generally what finally happens when someone continues trying to stand up an absurd, incorrect, and erroneous theory in the face of superior evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

LMAO.

I made 4 simple statements. Each of them addressing a specific mechanical engineering point related to your previous statement.

And all you heard was "... blah, blah, blah ..."

How incompetent.
 
tfk said:
LMAO.

I made 4 simple statements. Each of them addressing a specific mechanical engineering point related to your previous statement.

And all you heard was "... blah, blah, blah ..."

How incompetent.
Click to expand...

Yes, you made four statements which would be better described as four simple minded statements, since you provide no quantification or real probability for your contentions in your desperate attempt to avoid the very real general problems with Bazant's analysis that have been demonstrated.

The reality is that the fall of the upper section of WTC 1 is easily measureable and those measurements show it is accelerating at about 5.11 m/s^2, not Bazant's 9.81 m/s^2 freefall, so none of what you said to try and rehabilitate Bazant is germane in the least.
 
Last edited:
What TS has in mind for the impact is the "Bazant hinge" (below), except progressed to the point of contact between the knuckles. He has stated this before. That this leaves the column section folded by 180° doesn't bother him, and neither does the fact that it relies on axial folding at its exact mid-point while splices remain unbroken.

I don't know whether it's funny or sad.

bazanthinge.jpg
 
Last edited:
Animal said:
<YAWN>
Life must be frustrating, spending 11 years defending a cult religion from reality.
Click to expand...

No, it has actually been about six years for me, as I originally uncritically accepted Dr. Bazant's dynamic load hypothesis for the twin towers until hearing about anomalies like molten metal in the rubble and the befuddling collapse of WTC 7 and deciding to check for the deceleration required to gain a dynamic load myself.

A natural collapse can certainly look like a controlled demolition, as long as there is deceleration, but the only way a collapse can occur without deceleration is for it to have been caused artificially.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
No, it has actually been about six years for me, as I originally uncritically accepted Dr. Bazant's dynamic load hypothesis for the twin towers until hearing about anomalies like molten metal in the rubble and the befuddling collapse of WTC 7 and deciding to check for the deceleration required to gain a dynamic load myself.

A natural collapse can certainly look like a controlled demolition, as long as there is deceleration, but the only way a collapse can occur without deceleration is for it to have been caused artificially.
Click to expand...

The missing jolt is false. The ends of all the columns at WTC1,2 did not hit squarely and simultaneously due to the tilt of the upper part.
You can see it here at WTC2 [3 sec right side] The west wall, opposite the first failed east wall, is rotating about the center of mass=center of rotation, the top section rotating past the columns below.

At WTC1 the south wall failed 0.7 sec, 7 feet 11 in., before the north wall failed, initiating the rotation of the upper part. The rotating upper part laterally displaced the top part, shearing the stationary columns below.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Yes, you made four statements which would be better described as four simple minded statements, since you provide no quantification or real probability for your contentions in your desperate attempt to avoid the very real general problems with Bazant's analysis that have been demonstrated.
Click to expand...
...You can demonstrate problems with his remarks as much as you want, the problem with your criticism is that you still think his paper was a reflection of the real world condition, when in fact it was a limiting case with simplified assumptions. You also attempted to claim otherwise when it requires nothing more than cursory check of the first page of his paper to demonstrate otherwise.

In other words, your starting assumptions try to frame Bazant's paper as a real world scenario... The mistakes have nothing to do with the calculations, they're incredibly basic reading comprehension, which ruins the whole body of your argument before it gets off the ground. Maybe if you started your criticism with a proper reading of these things, half of your problems would be resolved.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
...In other words, your starting assumptions try to frame Bazant's paper as a real world scenario...
Click to expand...
clap.gif
clap.gif

As you and I (and occasionally some others) keep telling Tony in exquisite detail. You cannot take measurements off a donkey and use those measurements to prove the skin thickness of an orange. And, given that processing 'reductio ad blooming ridiculous' analogies may not be one of Tony's skills - You cannot take measurements off the real world 9/11 event and use them to disprove Bazant's abstraction.
Grizzly Bear said:
...The mistakes have nothing to do with the calculations, they're incredibly basic reading comprehension, which ruins the whole body of your argument before it gets off the ground. Maybe if you started your criticism with a proper reading of these things, half of your problems would be resolved.
Click to expand...
thumbup.gif
 
Grizzly Bear said:
...You can demonstrate problems with his remarks as much as you want, the problem with your criticism is that you still think his paper was a reflection of the real world condition, when in fact it was a limiting case with simplified assumptions. You also attempted to claim otherwise when it requires nothing more than cursory check of the first page of his paper to demonstrate otherwise.

In other words, your starting assumptions try to frame Bazant's paper as a real world scenario... The mistakes have nothing to do with the calculations, they're incredibly basic reading comprehension, which ruins the whole body of your argument before it gets off the ground. Maybe if you started your criticism with a proper reading of these things, half of your problems would be resolved.
Click to expand...

An analysis cannot be a limiting case unless it has real world possibilities. Bazant's analysis could not have occurred under any circumstances, as he uses totally fictional values for velocity, mass, and energy absorption of the lower structure.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
An analysis cannot be a limiting case unless it has real world possibilities....
Click to expand...
Ambiguous claim BUT both interpretations are wrong.
Tony Szamboti said:
...Bazant's analysis could not have occurred under any circumstances,...
Click to expand...
Ditto - i.e. like the opening sentence this claim is also ambiguous and both are wrong.

...but the sillier error of logic is in this:
Tony Szamboti said:
as he uses totally fictional values for velocity, mass, and energy absorption of the lower structure.
Click to expand...
If Tony's claim of 'could not have occurred under any circumstances' is TRUE how could it rely causally on '..as he uses totally fictional values...etc'??

scratch.gif


nono.gif
 
Tony's simply wrong about his objection to Bazant.

BZ made some simplifying assumptions, including "negligable resistance" during buckling & FFA.

BLGB made no such assumption. In fact, less than FFA was the direct outcome (not an assumption) of their estimations of several forces, including the resistance forces of the buckling columns.

And BLGB CONFIRMED the validity of BZ's assumptions.

Tony's just blowing smoke again...
 
tfk said:
Tony's simply wrong about his objection to Bazant.

BZ made some simplifying assumptions, including "negligable resistance" during buckling & FFA.

BLGB made no such assumption. In fact, less than FFA was the direct outcome (not an assumption) of their estimations of several forces, including the resistance forces of the buckling columns.

And BLGB CONFIRMED the validity of BZ's assumptions.

Tony's just blowing smoke again...
Click to expand...

Simplified that for you :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom