RFC: Bazant and Zhou Simple Analysis refuted

[Max Photon]

The important question is not collapse progression, but collapse initiation

I read some of this thread and now I feel stupid

Kudos to all of you. You're doing work that persons such as myself would never be able to do.

Doc, understanding is a strange thing - when you understand something, it seems infinitely easy, and when you don't, it seems infinitely difficult.

I am sure if someone oriented you, you'd probably be shrieking like 2nd grader at recess as you let in how simple - how simplified - how over-simplified - all this really is.


Doc, I'll tell you where I'm lost. I for the life of me can fathom why everyone is so interested in collapse progression.

The interesting question - and the important question from a 'whodunit" perspective - is what initiated collapse.

If collapse progression is an unquenchable fetish, then at a minimum recognize that output from WHAT INITIATED COLLAPSE? is input for HOW DID COLLAPSE PROGRESS?

If you think collapse initiation was not catalyzed, and it was, then the input for your collapse progression modeling will likely be incorrect.

Studying collapse progression before resolving collapse initiation is putting the cart before the horse.

Photon Max

 

[beachnut]

But the elusive proving the WTC can't fall is still beyond your reach

I have recalculated Bazant and Zhou's overload ratio with the result that progressive collapse is not predicted by the model. Please see the article:

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/docs/Overload.pdf

Any constructive comments would be appreciated.

You can't prove the WTC can not fail due to fire after the impact. You could live up to your membership in 9/11 truth and help with the petition of truth you signed.

Oops, you have made over 6, errors. Good luck next time. You do understand this is a model. Which paper? Oh, the one they did right after the WTC fell. Oh, then you can do it again and show how the concept is correct since the building did fall. If not you are wasting your time.

As seen you have not proved anything about 9/11, you are just attacking a model. It would be better to submit your own model. But I know you are trying to prove the WTC can not fail due to impact and fire alone. When will you prove the silent explosives and or the nut case thermite idea is real? Good work, you are attacking a model; If I was doing this I would just produce the work you really want, your so called paper to prove the WTC can not fail; like Ross. Ross was dead wrong.

So when will your final paper be done?

Which WTC does not fail? What about the other one? 3 days, 6 years, so?

You need to get Heiwa and Max Photo to be your helpers on this; Jones and his thermite can help, and Tony, he is an expert at research. With all that help you will be on your way. When you fix a few errors your paper will be a very good paper on a model about the WTC. Good luck again. (have you published this in the thermite inspired Journal of Truthyness yet?

I am sorry, but...

 

[metamars]

The freefall assumption is false.

Well, yes it is. I usually think in terms of refuting the BZ paper via showing that, even accepting this assumption (as well as the assumption of an axial strike), that collapse would be arrested.

In order to do so definitively, at the very least one will have to rely on quantitative research which existed well before 911, and solve numerically.

I think everybody knows that both the assumption of freefall through h and axiality are false. It just makes the problem tractable.

Even so, nobody has convincingly solved even the simplified problem!

 

[metamars]

You need to get Heiwa and Max Photo to be your helpers on this; Jones and his thermite can help, and Tony, he is an expert at research.

Don't you agree that the best help of all would be somebody like Ari-Gur or Singer?

 

[Heiwa]

Let's start again.

The structure below the initiation zone is much stronger at ground level than at at initiation level. We are interested what happens at the initiation level so the spring constant k or C at the initiation level must be considered. What can it be? 2 GN/m ?

The mass above m can not be considered as rigid or constant (as Bazant does) and must be divided into parts connected by springs. Thus m = m1 + m2 ... etc.

So what happens when mass m1 contacts (impacts?) the structure below with a modified spring constant at initiation level (a little before m2, m3, etc comes into action)?

m1 evidently compresses the structure below ... and bounces back, where it meets m2.

I can visualize that some parts of m1 and m2 then at this meeting in the air are squeezed out outside the foot print of the structure below ... and will not assist in the future action on the structure below. Energy is thus lost.

Then m3 comes into action and the same things happens.

I would expect that most of the kinetic energy from above (which is not very much by the way) is lost that way so there is no risk of overloading the structure below.

I have to repeat that the forensic evidence doesn't support my theory above. Forensic evidence shows that a bomb is dropped on the building.

Where could it have come from?

 

[Wildy]

I have to repeat that the forensic evidence doesn't support my theory above. Forensic evidence shows that a bomb is dropped on the building.

Where could it have come from?

Really, Forensic evidence shows that? I never knew. The last time I checked Forensic Science made sense...

Besides if it was a bomb, could it have been a napalm bomb?

 

[beachnut]

Don't you agree that the best help of all would be somebody like Ari-Gur or Singer?

I wonder if he is so inclined to use real work, or their work. Unknown if he can handle real help. He has already signed up to support the dyed in the wool expert 9/11 truth movement.

 

[SDC]

I have to repeat that the forensic evidence doesn't support my theory above. Forensic evidence shows that a bomb is dropped on the building.

Where could it have come from?

I'm sorry, but could you provide that "forensic evidence"? I thought the usual complaint was that everything had been hauled away from the site too soon for it to be used as "forensic evidence," and that in itself was what certain people suspicious.

So the lack of evidence is the evidence?

 

[Heiwa]

Really, Forensic evidence shows that? I never knew. The last time I checked Forensic Science made sense...

Besides if it was a bomb, could it have been a napalm bomb?

Well, forensic evidence doesn't show what caused the collapse in the first place! To me it looks like a sudden explosion because the wall columns in the initiation zone seem to be the last structure to fail. I cannot see a bomb. I cannot see m1 falling down making contact (m1 = first floor above?) with the floor in the initiation zone, or m2 (second floor coming after?), etc. either.

This m = m1 + m2 + m3 ... is actually a Nist suggestion! 6 or 11 floors above suddenly dropped down one after another ... and global collapse ensued.

I wonder why so may floors suddenly dropped down. I live in a high rise building so I like to find out. I don't want the floor above to drop down on me.

 

[Heiwa]

I'm sorry, but could you provide that "forensic evidence"? I thought the usual complaint was that everything had been hauled away from the site too soon for it to be used as "forensic evidence," and that in itself was what certain people suspicious.

So the lack of evidence is the evidence?

Not at all. The forensic evidence is live videos. Just look.

 

[SDC]

Well, the definition I found (Businessdirectory.com with a quick search) says videos are not forensic evidence: "Evidence usable in a court, specially the one obtained by scientific methods such as ballistics, blood test, and DNA test." Videos may be evidence, but they can't (?) be called forensic evidence. (Warning: I attended only the Dick Wolf School of Criminal Law.)

Freedictionary is more liberal, but I think when people nowadays think of "forensic evidence" they think of the scientific kind, not "it looked like it on that there video."
1. Relating to, used in, or appropriate for courts of law or for public discussion or argumentation.
2. Of, relating to, or used in debate or argument; rhetorical.
3. Relating to the use of science or technology in the investigation and establishment of facts or evidence in a court of law: a forensic laboratory.

 

[R.Mackey]

Well, forensic evidence doesn't show what caused the collapse in the first place! To me it looks like a sudden explosion because the wall columns in the initiation zone seem to be the last structure to fail. I cannot see a bomb. I cannot see m1 falling down making contact (m1 = first floor above?) with the floor in the initiation zone, or m2 (second floor coming after?), etc. either.

You cannot possibly be suggesting that the upper block did not contact the lower floors. The floors were over 60 meters across! How could it miss??

Answer it elsewhere, start a new thread if you must. You're off-topic, and derailing a potentially useful thread. Fair warning has been issued.

 

[DGM]

Not at all. The forensic evidence is live videos. Just look.

This is a very interesting thread debated by a few real engineers about real concerns. Would you please take your argument elsewhere.

 

[Apollo20]

Heiwa:

Two points:

Where do you get your spring constant value of 2 GN/m? You appear to pull this number out of a (truss) hat!

Secondly, you say there was no bowing/buckling of the exterior wall columns prior to the collapse of the towers. Well please take a look at Fig 6-21 on page 178 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6. That sure looks like bowing of the east face wall near floor 80 of WTC 2 to me.

 

[GregoryUrich]

You can't prove the WTC can not fail due to fire after the impact. You could live up to your membership in 9/11 truth and help with the petition of truth you signed.

Oops, you have made over 6, errors. Good luck next time. You do understand this is a model. Which paper? Oh, the one they did right after the WTC fell. Oh, then you can do it again and show how the concept is correct since the building did fall. If not you are wasting your time.

As seen you have not proved anything about 9/11, you are just attacking a model. It would be better to submit your own model. But I know you are trying to prove the WTC can not fail due to impact and fire alone. When will you prove the silent explosives and or the nut case thermite idea is real? Good work, you are attacking a model; If I was doing this I would just produce the work you really want, your so called paper to prove the WTC can not fail; like Ross. Ross was dead wrong.

So when will your final paper be done?

Which WTC does not fail? What about the other one? 3 days, 6 years, so?

You need to get Heiwa and Max Photo to be your helpers on this; Jones and his thermite can help, and Tony, he is an expert at research. With all that help you will be on your way. When you fix a few errors your paper will be a very good paper on a model about the WTC. Good luck again. (have you published this in the thermite inspired Journal of Truthyness yet?

I am sorry, but...

6 errors. Let's hear 'em. Put up or shut up!

 

[JamesB]

I wonder why so may floors suddenly dropped down. I live in a high rise building so I like to find out. I don't want the floor above to drop down on me.

Well if an airliner crashes into a floor above you and starts a massive fire, I suggest you leave immediately.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Doc, understanding is a strange thing - when you understand something, it seems infinitely easy, and when you don't, it seems infinitely difficult.

I am sure if someone oriented you, you'd probably be shrieking like 2nd grader at recess as you let in how simple - how simplified - how over-simplified - all this really is.


Doc, I'll tell you where I'm lost. I for the life of me can fathom why everyone is so interested in collapse progression.

The interesting question - and the important question from a 'whodunit" perspective - is what initiated collapse.

If collapse progression is an unquenchable fetish, then at a minimum recognize that output from WHAT INITIATED COLLAPSE? is input for HOW DID COLLAPSE PROGRESS?

If you think collapse initiation was not catalyzed, and it was, then the input for your collapse progression modeling will likely be incorrect.

Studying collapse progression before resolving collapse initiation is putting the cart before the horse.

Photon Max

,xaM

.tnatropmi erom yletinifed si noitaitini espalloC.

Nonetheless, the evidence of temperatures reached prior to collapse is neither representative nor conclusive. To make any progress on initiation, fire modeling is necessary. Unfortunately, I perceive fire modelling as beyond me, so I am focusing on the issues I might understand without months of reducating myself: fall times and collapse progression.

Collapse progression seems to be a close call, but it would disprove the gravity driven collapse hypothesis if collapse arrest could be convincingly demonstrated. I do see value in ruling out any one of the existing hypotheses, which would help us to focus on the others or to come up with new ones.

 

[metamars]

I wonder if he is so inclined to use real work, or their work. Unknown if he can handle real help. He has already signed up to support the dyed in the wool expert 9/11 truth movement.

As have I. I just sent an email to Professor Ari-Gur with an invitation to participate in this thread. I also asked him to extend the invitation to Professor Singer.

Have a nice day.

 

[cmcaulif]

If you follow their argument, you can't get to equation 3 without failure at the first impact. The additional mgh never comes into play!

I realize this, but I think it would be much simpler to modify equation three to include the energy displaced elastically, as well as accounting for the upper block. Equation one, due to its very approximate nature, is much less appropriate and in my opinion not a whole lot of info can really be taken away from it, other than that the building was made to perform in circumstances well outside what the designers could have anticipated.

 

[T.A.M.]

Not at all. The forensic evidence is live videos. Just look.

Did someone "Stundie" this, because they should...

TAM