RFC: Bazant and Zhou Simple Analysis refuted

Dave Rogers said:
No, Heiwa. We normal people see the photographs in which the perimeter columns are bending inwards, and in the Trinity Church video we can very clearly see them buckle, crumple and hinge as the collapse initiates. It's only those who refuse to see this that have a problem.

Dave
Click to expand...

Before collapse of the building can start, there must be release of potential energy from above that allegedly starts when all columns in the initiation zone fail simultaneously.

The roof cannot move before all the columns in the initiation zone fail, etc. If the roof moves before, something is wrong. I see the roof moving before all the columns at the initiation zone has failed completely.

Run various videos from different view angles synchronously side by side and watch - frame by frame.

After all the columns in the initiation zone has failed (i.e. are not carrying any load) release of potential energy should start. No collapse of the tower below has started.

This potential energy is, in theory, flying in the air, and should take a certain time to reach the top floor of the initiation zone.

Various 'experts' suggest that the potential energy corresponds to the mass above moving down 3.7 meters = the height of the columns between two floors (the top floor of the tower below and the bottom floor of the tower above) that is mostly full of air. OK - this should take only 0.5 seconds.

Fair enough. The amount of potential energy released is then 340 kWh that corresponds to 40 kgs of diesel oil.

Then a vertical 'impact' is supposed to take place. The lowest floor of the mass above lands on the top floor of the tower below. The speed cannot be more than 10 kms/h. Probably less. If anything is seen moving vertically faster, something is wrong.

All the columns and other stuff in between the two floors are supposed to be just crushed.

And it is now, for unexplained reasons, that global collapse of tower below just ensues, according Nist. No parts can be thrown out sideways before this event takes place = the two floors bumping together. If anything is seen thrown outwards before, something is wrong.

However, the amazing release of potential energy seems to take at least 5 seconds as seen on all videos. But it should take only 0.5 seconds. And during these 5 seconds the complete top part seems to crumple, or actually, disintegrate.

This I see on all the videos and I find that it does not tally with what Nist and Bazant are saying. I have no problem with that.
 
Dave, did you notice those rows of squibs, the distance between them is not exactly the distance of a story, but much more, I've noticed that also for a couple of other movies that I synchronized in time. This is a big contradiction for the theory that these are caused by falling floors. The same appears at the other side of the building in spite of the fact that the block topples, the floors cannot enclose the amount of air. The first row is above the mechanical floors, the 2nd is in the mechanical floors and the third below. There are a couple of other things also that doesn't fit the official story.
 
einsteen said:
Dave, did you notice those rows of squibs, the distance between them is not exactly the distance of a story, but much more, I've noticed that also for a couple of other movies that I synchronized in time. This is a big contradiction for the theory that these are caused by falling floors. The same appears at the other side of the building in spite of the fact that the block topples, the floors cannot enclose the amount of air. The first row is above the mechanical floors, the 2nd is in the mechanical floors and the third below. There are a couple of other things also that doesn't fit the official story.
Click to expand...

I didn't see any squibs, no. I saw an enormous amount of what looked like fine particulate ejecta, but no flashes from explosive devices. It may well be that the floors didn't collapse quite as neatly and sequentially as the drastically over-simplified collapse theories suggest; for one thing, multiple floor collapses could have resulted from column fracture at the weld planes and bolt connections, for which there's a good deal of evidence. Frankly, though, it'll take rather more than some alleged inconsistencies in the levels at which dust was ejected to make me seriously consider the possibility that the towers were brought down by explosives that were installed without anyone noticing, didn't emit any flash, miraculously pulled the perimeter columns inwards at the point of detonation and only threw out dust relatively slowly. Really, this looks nothing like an explosive demolition, and it's only the truly delusional who can claim sincerely that it does.

Dave
 
GregoryUrich said:
The splice is between floor 98 and 99, where the columns become approximately 15-20% thinner. So are we assuming the upper floor will fail first?
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the differences between the upper or lower floor, just the general layout of columns and the total energy required to completly fail one floor of columns.

The columns are spliced every 3 floors, but they're staggered. This means that 1/3rd of the columns are spliced at every floor. These splices can't develop the full bending capacity of the steel column and will thus fail at the splices first.
 
Dave Rogers said:
I didn't see any squibs, no. I saw an enormous amount of what looked like fine particulate ejecta, but no flashes from explosive devices. It may well be that the floors didn't collapse quite as neatly and sequentially as the drastically over-simplified collapse theories suggest; for one thing, multiple floor collapses could have resulted from column fracture at the weld planes and bolt connections, for which there's a good deal of evidence. Frankly, though, it'll take rather more than some alleged inconsistencies in the levels at which dust was ejected to make me seriously consider the possibility that the towers were brought down by explosives that were installed without anyone noticing, didn't emit any flash, miraculously pulled the perimeter columns inwards at the point of detonation and only threw out dust relatively slowly. Really, this looks nothing like an explosive demolition, and it's only the truly delusional who can claim sincerely that it does.

Dave
Click to expand...

Maybe I shouldn't call it squibs, but if it is pulveriation of concrete (there is barely movement, in the beginning) then it should also be something that occurs on the level of a story. Ok I understand this is a non-lineair extremely chaotic process, everything will crush randomly, but on the other hand the rows are very lineair and as far as I can see at all sides of the building. I will soon try to synchronize 4 videos in a mosaic to see if this is the case.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
I'm not talking about the differences between the upper or lower floor, just the general layout of columns and the total energy required to completly fail one floor of columns.

The columns are spliced every 3 floors, but they're staggered. This means that 1/3rd of the columns are spliced at every floor. These splices can't develop the full bending capacity of the steel column and will thus fail at the splices first.
Click to expand...

I know the external columns are staggered, but I've never heard anything about the core being staggered. In fact, I've been through the SAP model core data and none are staggered.
 
Heiwa said:
PS - thanks for reminding me that I have in another thread doubted that WTC1 would have been hit by a plane 80+ minutes before alleged release of potential energy.
Click to expand...

Except when videos are inconvenient for you, Heiwa. To wit, you wrote:

Conclusions (based on negative evidence):

A. The alleged hijacked planes did not crash at the various sites.
B. Whatever caused damage at the various crash sites was not a hijacked airplane.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/2406?page=1
Click to expand...
Ooops! How are you going to get out of that fix, Heiwa? Videos and photos of UA 175 hitting WTC 2 are irrefutable, to wit:

 
einsteen said:
Maybe I shouldn't call it squibs, but if it is pulveriation of concrete (there is barely movement, in the beginning) then it should also be something that occurs on the level of a story. Ok I understand this is a non-lineair extremely chaotic process, everything will crush randomly, but on the other hand the rows are very lineair and as far as I can see at all sides of the building. I will soon try to synchronize 4 videos in a mosaic to see if this is the case.
Click to expand...
Why do you say concrete? Wouldn't ceiling tiles and drywalled partitions be the first to go?
 
GregoryUrich said:
I know the external columns are staggered, but I've never heard anything about the core being staggered. In fact, I've been through the SAP model core data and none are staggered.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm referring to the external columns here. There'd be no reason to stagger the core columns. There's another mechanic that will "assist" the core columns in failing without developing the full plastic bending capacity, but it's a bit more complicated. I need to do some maths with them before I can really put my finger on it though.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
Yes, I'm referring to the external columns here. There'd be no reason to stagger the core columns. There's another mechanic that will "assist" the core columns in failing without developing the full plastic bending capacity, but it's a bit more complicated. I need to do some maths with them before I can really put my finger on it though.
Click to expand...

s'ok, NB
Just remember that no failure ever occurs before ultimate, and Young's Modulus is constant at 29.9e6 psi for all values up to ultimate.
 
einsteen said:
Maybe I shouldn't call it squibs, but if it is pulveriation of concrete (there is barely movement, in the beginning) then it should also be something that occurs on the level of a story. Ok I understand this is a non-lineair extremely chaotic process, everything will crush randomly, but on the other hand the rows are very lineair and as far as I can see at all sides of the building. I will soon try to synchronize 4 videos in a mosaic to see if this is the case.
Click to expand...

It is not non-linear or extremely chaotic or flashes or floors or squibs or whatever you see or can dream of to disturb the thread in a terrorist like manner. It is very simple. OK, subtraction.

1. Use as starting time, Tstart, when all the columns have failed in the initiation zone, i.e. when the upper part is hanging in the air without any support. Easy to see on any video! Anyone can see that. This is when the release of potential energy starts = the cause of the whole mess. If you cannot see that, ask Nist and Bazant and they will tell you the time and how to establish it because they state it occurred and should know when. But you are smarter than that, so just look on your mosaic and establish Tstart. You need a watch or clock for that, BTW.

2. If anything happens before that = Tstart, e.g. the roof moves, the top part tilts och behaves strangely, top part starts falling apart, squibs, flashes, etc you have probably got it wrong and must start again, because nothing can happen before all columns in the initiation zone has failed ... simultaneously = Tstart. Sorry for saying that when you are so smart, but other readers of this message may need to be reminded.

3. Establish then the time, Timpact, when the impact, or bump, between the upper, lose part and the fixed bottom part occurs. Again, if you have any difficulties, ask Nist, Bazant, FEMA, FBI, CIA, etc. for assistance. Freedom of information you know. But look out. HR 1955 is law (to be?) so don't use any force to find out because then you are by definition a terrorist. But if the event happened, there must be a time for it = Timpact.

4. Now it gets difficult - subtraction. What is (Tstart - Timpact) ?

If you cannot answer this simple question, I suggest you get ashamed of yourself and retire from JREF Forum for ... ever (would be best). We will then sadly miss your intelligent contributions, but that's life.

Look forward to a clear and concise response.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa,

I was responding to Dave and don't really understand your reply, but I hope that you, with your superior IQ, understand that I absolutely am no supporter of the gravity driven theory.
 
How much weight can one floor take? Greg

Greg, your answer was where is the list?
(idiot CD ideas are coming up; that proves all your work is crap! have your CD chorus of woo stop doing the squib crap, it shows their complete ignorance on 9/11)

The question is how much weight can one floor take? 70,000,000 pounds? 31,000,000 pounds? What will the floor fail to hold?
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
Before collapse of the building can start, there must be release of potential energy from above that allegedly starts when all columns in the initiation zone fail simultaneously.

The roof cannot move before all the columns in the initiation zone fail, etc. If the roof moves before, something is wrong. I see the roof moving before all the columns at the initiation zone has failed completely.

Run various videos from different view angles synchronously side by side and watch - frame by frame.

After all the columns in the initiation zone has failed (i.e. are not carrying any load) release of potential energy should start. No collapse of the tower below has started.
Click to expand...
 
beachnut said:
Greg, your answer was where is the list?
(idiot CD ideas are coming up; that proves all your work is crap! have your CD chorus of woo stop doing the squib crap, it shows their complete ignorance on 9/11)

The question is how much weight can one floor take? 70,000,000 pounds? 31,000,000 pounds? What will the floor fail to hold?
Click to expand...

Clearly you don't have list. Only long "woo" infected harangues. You are back on ingore.
 
einsteen said:
Heiwa,

I was responding to Dave and don't really understand your reply, but I hope that you, with your superior IQ, understand that I absolutely am no supporter of the gravity driven theory.
Click to expand...

Pls discuss with Dave your OT stuff on a thread made for that. In my opinion you behave like terrorists on this forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom