I don't know if anyone's posted a reply to Heiwa's response to Bazant's closure.
This is my quick take from a cursory reading.
Heiwa said:
The above Closure must be regarded as the most shameful Closure in structural damage analysis history!
Anders is desperately in need of two things:
1. Remedial engineering statics/dynamics class
2. Ego bypass procedure.
Heiwa said:
Actually no structure or building of any kind can progressively collapse from top down to ground by gravity...
Surprisingly, we have a statement by Heiwa that is almost true.
Unsurprisingly, it is totally irrelevant.
If the jets had collided with the 109th/110th story (i.e., the real "top"), it is likely they would not have collapsed. Since there would have been little dead weights above the weakened impact points.
Unfortunately, they were struck at high midpoints, with significant weights above the impact points.
Heiwa said:
Actually no structure or building of any kind can progressively collapse from top down ...
Yeah, "Rainmaning" one's (erroneous) conclusion is always a compelling argument... [roll eyes]
___
"But ... but ... but ..."
Bazant said:
the discusser claims that the progressive collapse model we developed in the paper does not consider the energy required to compress the rubble. This claim is absurd.
Heiwa said:
Absurd? So let's do an energy balance ...
Yes, Heiwa's claim is "absurd". Which is engineering-speak for "completely, utterly, laughably wrong".
Bazant did, in fact, consider the energy required to compress the rubble. Heiwa either didn't read his paper carefully or was unable to comprehend it.
Further, Heiwa seems to misunderstand the nature of his "communications" with Dr. Bazant. He had his shot. Your discussion turned out (unsurprisingly) to be careless and incompetent.
I don't pretend to speak for Dr. Bazant. But I would be EXTRAORDINARILY surprised to find out that he'd bother with any "Anders-come-lately" follow up discussion.
Especially (as we're about to see) since it is just as incompetent & laden with trivial errors as all the rest of his work.
___
Disappearing Equations of Motion...
Bazant said:
If the discusser rejects the differential equation form of the equations of motion based on a smeared continuum approximation, he could be credible only if he formulated and solved discrete equations of motion.
Heiwa said:
OK, let's formulate and solve the equation of motion of top part C and the energies associated with it.
A big hint here, Anders.
People will laugh at Heiwa significantly less if, after saying something like the above, he actually bothered to, uh, you know, "state and solve the equations of motion of part C"...!!
Heiwa never states them.
Heiwa never solves them.
The only (unstated) equations that he does solve is for a generic weight falling in free fall.
Heiwa might take a lesson from that person that he disparages as "an old man" (i.e., Dr. Bazant) who DOES, in fact, state & solve the equations of motion for a carefully defined model of the collapsing towers.
[Pardon my bluntness, Anders, but it seems fairly evident at this point that you aren't capable of generating realistic (i.e., non-trivial) equations of motion for a collapse like this. And it is further evident that you've come to realize that every time you actually write something down, you get boxed about the ears for the litany of trivial errors.]
Hence his fondness for blathering prose & unsupported conclusions.
___
Energy for crushing
Heiwa said:
Top part C drops down about 31.38 meters in about 3.00 seconds as recorded from videos. ... The drop corresponds to a loss of 53 000 000 x 31.38 x 9.82 kg m m/s² = 16.33 GJ of potential energy.
... the actual velocity of C after 3.00 seconds is only about 20.74 m/s as observed from videos, which corresponds to 11.40 GJ of kinetic energy ...
So where has the 16.33-11.40 = 4.93 GJ or 30.2% of the remaining available energy gone in this process?
Heiwa's energy balance equation is wrong.
He ignored the fact that the compacted mass dropped too. The top of that mass dropped 31.38 meters. The bottom of that compacted mass dropped zero. With a linear transition from top to bottom.
Seems to me that Heiwa has not accounted for about 0.5 * 9.81m/sec^2 * (41.84m * 1,000,000 kg/m) * 31.38 m = 6.5 GJ of energy input.
[Pssst, Anders. This sort of variation is exactly why Dr. Bazant used those pesky differential equations, of which you are so ... disparaging. (... or perhaps "frightened".)
Heiwa said:
You do not need a differential equation to calculate that!!
No, you don't. You don't even need one to make this trivial calculation correctly. You DO need a little bit of attention to detail, however.
Bazant said:
"the compacted layer cannot be expected to be seen in the video record"
Heiwa said:
So we are simply asked to believe that top C in 3.00 seconds compresses 41.84 meters of upper section of bottom part A into a 10.46 meters rubble layer B that we cannot be expected to see! Are Bazant & Co serious?
Is Heiwa serious?
[Anders, please proved the video that allows you (alone in the world) to see thru the opaque cloud of dust & observe the dynamics of the crush layer interface 3 seconds into the collapse?]
Lacking that, we can see, unequivocally, that the top has moved down by 41 meters.
We see, unequivocally, that the tower below the cloud has not moved at all.
Heiwa said:
To compress one kilogram of intact WTC1 part A into rubble B has apparently required 118 J because 4.93 GJ/41 840 000 kg is 118 J/kg!
Oops. You forgot about that extra 6.5 GJ...
(4.93 + 6.5 GJ) / 42,000,000 kg = 272 J/kg.
Heiwa said:
To shred a 1 000 kg car into pieces may require 30 kWh energy or 108 000 Ws/kg
Meaningless, irrelevant, unsupported comment. It'd take a bit of a derivation to explain why. But I wouldn't want to deny Heiwa the chance (or rather, responsibility) to present his case.
Heiwa said:
Bazant & Co suggest that extremely little energy is required to pulverize and compact and accelerate steel/concrete part A into rubble B.
Anders is illiterate. Whether willfully so, or not, doesn't really matter.
His comment is 100% wrong, confused, conflated.
Bazant was extremely careful to create a detailed hierarchy of energy sinks. Heiwa is incompetent to simply restate it accurately. Even tho it is printed on his own website, on the very page, immediately above where he has posted his reply.
Bazant did not say that any one of those energy requirements was "extremely little". He said that they were small
compared to the next larger one in the list. The largest sink being "the energy required to accelerate downward the accreted stationary mass at the crushing front".
A clear statement that Heiwa somehow interprets to mean "the energy required to accelerate steel/concrete [is] extremely little"...??!
Heiwa said:
Because to accelerate 1 kg of part A or rubble B to velocity 20.74 m/s in a gravity field requires 215 J or 40% more!
Amazingly incompetent...
First, that is the energy required to accelerate 1 kg (from zero) to 20.74 m/s [horizontally] in a gravity field. Which is precisely the same amount it takes to accelerate it from the same initial to same final speed in zero gravity.
[So, Anders, your comment "in a gravity field" is not only irrelevant. It is wrong.]
If you are ascending or descending in a gravity field, then additional energy will be required (ascending) or supplied (descending) by the potential energy of the system in order to reach the same speed.
[So, Heiwa, when discussing the WTC, is your archetypical 1 kg mass moving horizontally (like your ships) or vertically in the (big hint)
falling down towers? Is it getting any energy input from the earth's gravitational field? If so, what is the source of this energy? How do you account for this energy input in your energy balance? Another big hint: If you ever bothered to try to write down the equations properly, your answers might not turn out to be so consistently wrong.]
Heiwa said:
To suggest that 118 J/kg can destroy any structure of steel/concrete is criminal.
118 J/kg (or, rather the right number, if one includes the 6.5 GJ that Heiwa forgot: 272 J/kg) can be insufficient, just enough or way more than necessary to cause collapse, fracture and/or crush of a steel & concrete structure ... DEPENDING on the details of the structure's assembly.
272 J = the energy acquired by a 1 kg weight dropped from a height of E/mg = 272 J/mg = 272 J / (1 kg)(9.91 m/sec^2) = 28 meters (= 2.2 lbs from 90 feet).
If one were to drop that weight from that height onto a 1 kg ingot of steel, then it is unlikely to cause any "failure".
If one were to drop that weight from that height onto the same 1 kg mass of steel shaped into long, delicate strands (such as a bird cage), then one can be certain that the delicate structure will be fractured & crushed.
Whaddaya think, Anders. Was the structure of the WTC towers more like a solid ingot of metal or like an assembly of long, thin delicate members?
Here's two big hints for ya:
1. The building was 90% air.
2. This image:
Heiwa's blanket statement of this being impossible ain't criminal. It's just plain wrong.
Heiwa said:
Any such 'collapse' is always immediately arrested due to lack of energy. It cannot even start! Too much resistance to overcome!
Hundreds of videos presented to him, including the Verinage technique which starts the collapse in the middle & proceeds to the ground. Exactly what he is still claiming to be "impossible".
"Stupid AND obstinate is no way to go thru life, kid..."
Heiwa said:
If you think, like Bazant & Co, that 118 J applied by top part C can compress and/or accelerate 1 kg of intact WTC1 part A into rubble B and dust, you do not understand physics or structural damage analysis at all.
Sure thing, Anders.
And after you get done "correcting" Dr. Bazant's work, you're gonna take LeBron James down to your local gym & school him in 1 on 1 basketball. I'm sure that you could even get a few folks who know absolutely nothing about basketball to believe that you could. As for everyone with a little knowledge of the game...
Absolutely stunning.
In both arrogance and ineptitude.
Tom
