• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

$1M Controlled Demolition Challenge?

alienentity said:
I'd be interested to see them test the system (after building it first). According to a paper by Dr. Greg Jenkins titled 'The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish
the World Trade Center Towers'


'If no counter force is provided, then a massive reflecting satellite of
22,400 kg, the maximum payload of the space shuttle, 36 would accelerate toward the outer reaches of the solar system at 276 g. It would be travelingat 60,000 miles/hour away from the earth after demolishing one WTC tower.'
Click to expand...

Here's my own Beam Weapon of Doom post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2086102#post2086102

Greg's calculation is a bit off. Photons do carry momentum, but since they move at the speed of light, their energy/momentum fraction is rather high.

The WKBWoD-sat in my post puts 6 GJ of energy, or 600 MW onto a target 64 meters across, for 146 kW / m2. This is approximately 240 times as powerful as incident sunlight. Let's double power to take into account excess atmospheric loss and mirror efficiency, call it 480 times that of sunlight.

Solar photon pressure equates to about 10-5 Pa on an object in LEO. So our reflecting beam would produce 4.8 x 10-3 Pa, if it wasn't spreading at all; i.e. the total force is 4.8 x 10-3 Pa times 64 meters squared, or a mere 19.7 Newtons. The DSN would notice this effect on the Shuttle's orbit, but the occupants would not.

The Shuttle in orbit masses about 80,000 to 100,000 kg, probably closer to the upper limit if carrying a giant mirror. To get 276 g on such a heavy object requires a force of 276 MN, or about fourteen million times the radiation pressure of our beam. ETA: Reading more carefully, if the mirror was a deployed payload (makes sense), the mass is about one quarter as much, so it would need about 7 MN, or 3.5 million times the radiation pressure from our beam.

If we're reflecting some particle other than photons, the momentum taken by the Shuttle/reflector would be considerably higher, but Greg did specify a mirror.
 
Last edited:
Juan/Bob,

bill smith said:
Nah....I think it should be offered to engineers as a puzzle to work out on paper. The object might be to coerce or shame Bazant into showing up himself so Heiwa can dismantle him in the full light of publicity . There would have to be a time limit on he offer too. Otherwise it could go on forever.
Click to expand...

"... shame Bazant into showing up himself so Heiwa can dismantle him ..."

You have the habit, in both this ID & Bob's, of making absurd statements. As tho your utterances gave them reality. Most kids get over this by the age of about 7, once they notice that scrunching closed the eyes and wishing really, really, really hard does not make things come true.
___

Bazant's CV: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/docs/Bazant/resume.pdf
Bazant's list of publications: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/docs/Bazant/publicat.pdf

Highlights:

Education
C.E., Czech Technical University, Prague, Civil Engineering (Structural Engineering) 1960
Ph.D. (in mechanics)., Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, Prague 1963
Postgraduate diploma in Physics, Charles University, Prague 1966
Docent habil., Czech Technical University, Prague 1967
S.E. 1970, Illinois Registered Structural Engineer


Research
Prof. Bazant's interest spans mechanics of materials and structures, structural safety, response uncertainty, and engineering applications. The current investigations include some fundamental problems in the field of quasibrittle fracture and damage mechanics, fracture scaling and its asymptotics, size effects, probabilistic mechanics and extreme value statistics, ... constitutive models, progressive collapse of buildings, missile impact, seismic response, ... chemical reaction kinetics, ... , thermodynamics, poromechanics, ... His research team has been developing material models for fiber composites, concrete, rocks and soils, sea ice, snow, tough ceramics, sandwich shells, rigid foams, cellular materials, bone, and shape memory alloys. Applications have covered structural and aero-space engineering, building codes, ship design, automotive crashworthiness, arctic engineering, earthquake engineering and nuclear safety. Although the emphasis is theoretical, his team also conducts specialized fracture testing of composites, concretes and rocks. Computational modeling is a heavy component in each problem, but Bazant's attitude is to seek first analytical solutions and asymptotics-based approximations. The current and recent research sponsors include NSF, ONR, DoT, WES, ARO, DoE, AFOSR, Sandia N.L., Chrysler, Boeing, Cirrus Aircraft, and Argonne N.L.

Teaching Activities
Inelastic Analysis of Structures
Stability of Structures
Cohesive Fracture and Scaling


Honors and Awards
Elected to:
National Academy of Sciences;
National Academy of Engineering;
American Academy of Arts and Sciences;
Austrian Academy of Sciences;
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Rome);
Spanish Royal Academy of Engrg.;
Engrg. Academy of Czech Rep.;
Academia di Scienze e Lettere (Milan);
European Academy of Sciences and Arts.

Six Honary Doctorates (Boulder, Prague, Karlsruhe, Milan, Lyon, Vienna).

Awards & Prizes
Prager Medal from Society of Engineering Sciences;
von Karman Medal;
Newmark Medal;
Lifetime Achievement Award;
Croes Medal;
Huber Prize and TY Lin Award from ASCE;
Honarary Member ASCE;
Nadai Medal and Warner Medal from ASME;
L'Hermite Medal from RILEM;
Exner Medal, Austria;
Humboldt Prize, Germany;
Torroja Medal, Spain;
Solin Medal, Prague;
Z. Bazant (Sr.) Medal, Prague;
Stodola Medal, Slovakia;
Roy Award, Am.Ceramic Soc.;
ICOSSAR Award;
Czech Soc. for Mech. Medal;
Outstanding Contribution Award, IACMAS;
Guggenheim, NATO, JSPS, Humboldt, Ford and Kajima Fellowships;
National Winner, 1958 Math.Olympics, Czechoslovakia;

Among top 100 Highly Cited Scientist in Engineering ( >9300 citations )

Former President of SES, IA-FRAMCOS (founder) and IA-CONCREEP (founder);
Former Editor, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE.


Selected Publications

Textbooks (Number: 6) including:
* Baˇzant, Z.P., and Cedolin, L. (1991). Stability of Structures: Elastic, Inelastic, Fracture and Damage The- ories, Oxford University Press, New York (textbook and reference volume); republished (with updates) by Dover Publications (No. 42568-1), New York 2003 (1011 pp. + xxiv pp.).

* Jir´asek, M., and Baˇzant, Z.P. (2002). Inelastic Analysis of Structures. J. Wiley & Sons, London and New York (textbook and reference volume, 735 + xviii pp.).

* Baˇzant, Z.P. (2002). Scaling of Structural Strength. Hermes Penton Science (Kogan Page Science), London; 2nd updated ed., Elsevier, London 2005


Books Edited with Chapter Contributions (Number: 20) including:
* Baˇzant, Z.P., Bittnar, Z., Jir´asek, M., and Mazars, J., Editors (1994). Fracture and Damage in Quasibrittle Structures: Experiment, Theory and Computer Modeling

* Baˇzant, Z.P., and Ra japakse, Y.D.S., Editors (1999). Fracture Scaling (Proc., ONR Workshop on Frac- ture Scaling, University of Maryland, College Park, June 10–12, 1999

* Xi, Y., Baˇzant, Z.P., Pijaudier-Cabot, G., and Bittnar, Z., Guest Editors (2005). Model-Based Simulation of Durability of Materials and Structures, special issue of J. of Materials Engineering ASCE 17 (3), 239– 369 (with Editorial, pp. 239–240).

* Bazant, Z.P., and Cedolin, L. (1991). "Stability of Structures: Elastic, Inelastic, Fracture and Damage Theories", Oxford University Press, New York (textbook and reference volume, 984 + xxiv pp.).

* Bazant, Z.P. (2002). "Scaling of Structural Strength." Hermes Penton Science, London (French transl. with updates, Hermes, Paris, 2004).

* Bazant, Z.P. (2004). "Scaling theory for quasibrittle structural failure." Proc., National Academy of Sciences 101 (37), 13397-13399 (inaugural article).

State-of-Art Articles and Research Review Articles (Number: 51)

Published Biographies and Volumes Dedicated to Bazant (Number: 12)

Research Articles in Conference Proceedings (Number: 208)

Public Policy Contributions (Number: 5)

Research Articles in Refereed Journals and Book Chapters (Number: 484), including:

* Baˇzant, Z.P. (2001). “Why did the World Trade Center collapse?” SIAM News (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics) Vol. 34, No. 8

* Baˇzant, Z.P., and Zhou, Y. (2001). “Why did the World Trade Center collapse?—Simple analysis.” Build- ing Research Journal 49 (3), 135–146


* Baˇzant, Z.P., and Zhou, Y. (2002). “Why did the World Trade Center collapse?—Simple analysis.” J. of Engrg. Mechanics ASCE 128 (No. 1), 2–6;

* Baˇzant, Z.P., and Verdure, M. (2007). “Mechan- ics of progressive collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and building demolitions.” J. of Engrg. Mechan- ics ASCE 133 (3), 308–319.

* Guo, Z., and Baˇzant, Z.P. (2006). “Size effect on buckling strength of eccentrically compressed column with fixed or propagating transverse crack.” Int. J. of Fracture 142, 151–162.

* Baˇzant, Z.P., Le, J.-L., Greening, F.R., and Ben- son, D.B. (2008). “What did and did not cause collapse of World Trade Center twin towers in New York?”. J. of Engrg. Mechanics ASCE 134 (10) 892–906. (5), p. 54.

___
___

Now Let's list Heiwa's resume info:

Anders Bjorkman:
CV: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/cv.htm

"The managing director of Heiwa Co is Anders Björkman, M.Sc. Naval Architect and Marine Engineer, with more than 35 years experience of tanker and ferry design, construction and operations worldwide. Mr Bjorkman has been a delegate to the IMO for various national administrations and one NGO and has been a speaker at various Safety at Sea conferences. Mr Bjorkman holds several patents concerned with ship safety."

Education:
Chalmers University of Technology -Gothenburg/ Sweden, M.Sc. Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering - 1969
Various business courses and in-house training 1971-1999.

Professional experience:
Marine engineer in Swedish Navy 1970
8 years: Ship surveyor
2 years: Casualty investigator
20 years: Project manager, naval architect
8 years: Managing director, shipping consultancy company.

Patents
Tanker Collision Protection System Patent (1990)- USA, Japan, Korea, Brazil, Europe

Publications
Many articles published in The Naval Architect, MER, Lloyd's List, Dagens Nyheter about probabilistic methods to evaluate oil tanker protection, passenger ship damage survival, the 'Estonia' accident etc.
Most recent publications: Thoughts about WTC1 911 Collapse (2008)- Lies and Truths about the MV Estonia accident (1998), Nya Fakta om Estonia (1999), Katastrofutredning (2000), Disaster Investigation (2001) and Estoniabluffen (2002).

Additional professional activities
Have served as expert to the ICS, Liberia and Sweden delegations at the IMO.
Represented Liberia in the ICS Technical Committee
Speaker at international safety conferences and similar - Brighton 1998, Glasgow 1999, London 2002 Tallinn 2005Stockholm 2007
___
___


Sure think, billy. Heiwa's REALLY likely to "dismantle Bazant".

And I'm gonna stomp Michael Jordan the next time we cross paths on a B'Ball court, too...
 
Energy Weapons and the Hutchison Effect

R.Mackey said:
Here's my own Beam Weapon of Doom post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2086102#post2086102

Greg's calculation is a bit off. Photons do carry momentum, but since they move at the speed of light, their energy/momentum fraction is rather high.

...
Click to expand...

I was very surprised at his 276 g figure (even as a layman). Since my post, I did come across your LEO/GEO post, which I thought a definitive argument against the Dr. Judy Wood/ James Fetzer hypothesis.

'in legitimate studies, beam weapons have only been considered in cases where a much lower power (1 MW or less) can achieve a useful result, such as damaging fragile sensors or puncturing thin-walled critical structures, e.g. the booster of an ICBM.'

I wonder why followers of Wood, Fetzer, Jones et al can even consider their ideas as anything else than hypothetical, given the lack of data supporting them.
Dr. Wood has backed off the idea of vaporized steel in terms of high-energy mechanisms and has turned (in desperation, I guess) to the 'Hutchison Effect', which claims to use very low power. It just 'happens' to be one of the most unproven claims I've ever seen....

I can barely force myself to read some of their material, it's so cringe-inducing.

I suppose the silver lining in this is that the Wood/Fetzer and Jones theories have become hostile to each other.

btw John Hutchison lives in New Westminster, in metro Vancouver, where I live. It might be fun to pay a visit to his lab sometime..
 
bill smith said:
This was an analogy to provide an uncomplicated visual. I am aware that the floors formed part of the interbracing.
Click to expand...

A correction;
The floors were THE bracing. There was little diagonal bracing anywhere in the buildings. The perimeter and core were braced to each other via the floor trusses. No trusses and the perimeter falls apart, no trusses and the core cannot stand on its own.

Now create a situation in which the upper storeys fall onto the next floor down. Obviously the vertical columns are no longer in line and the mass will impact the floor, it will not impact the columns of the lower portion of the building. the floor truss was never built , in any ones dreams, to support the bulk of the mass of 13 storeys let alone the focre of impact. The floor truss seats would fail as quickly as a styrofoam cup that you step on. The column sections of the lower portion are also spearing up through the lowest floor of the upper section lifting or punching through them. The falling mass now impacts the next lower floor caving it in as quickly as the first one. the perimeter columns are coming apart at the impact zone. They no longer have any support and are being buffeted by the debris. the core columns are losing their connections to the perimeter but the horizontal connections between core columns is also being stripped away by falling debris, thus the core columns buckle under their own mass and the effect of collisions with debris.

So, if one were to magically cause the floor trusses to disappear then both perimeter and core systems would buckle and fail. Add in collisions with multi ton pieces of steel and concrete that are failing those trusses in a violent manner and you have what you saw on 9/11.
 
tfk said:
Publications
Many articles published in The Naval Architect, MER, Lloyd's List, Dagens Nyheter about probabilistic methods to evaluate oil tanker protection, passenger ship damage survival, the 'Estonia' accident etc.
Most recent publications: Thoughts about WTC1 911 Collapse (2008)- Lies and Truths about the MV Estonia accident (1998), Nya Fakta om Estonia (1999), Katastrofutredning (2000), Disaster Investigation (2001) and Estoniabluffen (2002).

Additional professional activities
Have served as expert to the ICS, Liberia and Sweden delegations at the IMO.
Represented Liberia in the ICS Technical Committee
Speaker at international safety conferences and similar - Brighton 1998, Glasgow 1999, London 2002 Tallinn 2005Stockholm 2007

Sure think, billy. Heiwa's REALLY likely to "dismantle Bazant".

And I'm gonna stomp Michael Jordan the next time we cross paths on a B'Ball court, too...
Click to expand...

And you don't want to investigate Heiwa's CV too closely.

It gets uncomfortable when you start discovering lies such as those confirmed by a couple of those journals. In fact - now that I look at the above, those "international safety conferences" .. Brighton, Glasgow etc ... used to have a much fancier title. "International Marine Convention for Safety at Sea", or somesuch. They seem to have been downgraded. Which is probably as well, as I could never find independant references. Just Heiwa's self-publicised ones.
 
Hi

Do you define explosively formed projectiles (EFP) as, "conventional explosives?"

I was discussing with a friend the other day about the possibility of making an EFP about the diameter of a porta-potty service vehicle. A few, with their butts aimed at the biggish weight-bearing members in the parking garage under a steel-structure high rise, concentrating on one side, could just do the trick.

Part of the design of this kind of thing would be that inspectors could do just about anything they wanted, by way of inspection, and only come up with... you know... porta-potty... stuff.

But...

I mean...

Who inspects porta-potty trucks?!?!?
 
Last edited:
Guess it could work, punching big holes in basement collums.
But it would look like the building collapsed from the bottom.:D

This idea of a challenge is overkill, as coherent cd teories excell by their absense.
 
Toke said:
Guess it could work, punching big holes in basement collums.
But it would look like the building collapsed from the bottom.:D

This idea of a challenge is overkill, as coherent cd teories excell by their absense.
Click to expand...

The challenge is just bs. If the "collapses" could have happened without some sort of assisting demolition activity a computer model would have been written to replicate the event and prove it was possible. The same type of program that verifies a building WILL NOT do a 9/11 "collapse" because pristine lower floors can't be made to fail by the weight floors from above.
 
Clayton Moore said:
The challenge is just bs. If the "collapses" could have happened without some sort of assisting demolition activity a computer model would have been written to replicate the event and prove it was possible. The same type of program that verifies a building WILL NOT do a 9/11 "collapse" because pristine lower floors can't be made to fail by the weight floors from above.
Click to expand...

Do you have any math to support your lie?
 
alienentity said:
yeah, that's possible.

It would actually be harder to collapse a healthy building, so perhaps the challenge should be for pristine conditions only.
We'd have to stipulate steel beam conditions similar to WTC collapses as well- there aren't any melted steel beams in the WTC collapses, so they wouldn't be allowed in the experiment either.
And there would need to be eutectic erosion shown as well, as in the WTC conditions.

The EC is part of the conspiracy 'proof' of CD, so they'd have to recreate that as well.

OK, scratch off fires and other structural damage.
Click to expand...

All that has to be done is make the upper "structure" fail until undamaged lower area is completely demolished. It makes no difference the cause of the failure(s).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NaAc...11blogger.com/
This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Do you have any math to support your lie?
Click to expand...

You are the one making the assertion that if the buildings could have collapsed without a controlled demolition, a computer program would have been written to replicate it (down to a "gnat's ass", I presume). Now back up your assertion. Of course, computer models HAVE been written to replicate the collapse, so I suppose your criterion of what constitutes an acceptible program will also be forthcoming.
 
LSSBB said:
You are the one making the assertion that if the buildings could have collapsed without a controlled demolition, a computer program would have been written to replicate it (down to a "gnat's ass", I presume). Now back up your assertion. Of course, computer models HAVE been written to replicate the collapse, so I suppose your criterion of what constitutes an acceptible program will also be forthcoming.
Click to expand...

Not all that difficult. Use software to recreate the building then program in support failures to the upper section/about 1/3 of the building until the lower 2/3 of the building is demolished in less than 30 seconds.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Not all that difficult. Use software to recreate the building then program in support failures to the upper section/about 1/3 of the building until the lower 2/3 of the building is demolished in less than 30 seconds.
Click to expand...

Great looking forward to seeing you do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom