RFC: Bazant and Zhou Simple Analysis refuted

[funk de fino]

I have just calculated the total potential energy released involved assuming all columns fail simultaneously as per Nist and a vertical drop. If some columns do not fail there is evidently no potential energy released there and there may be some rotation - but I cannot see any big rotation.

The vertical drop should start when all columns in the initiation zone fails, but it does not seem to be the case. The roof drops first - vertically.

However - let's assume that only half the columns on one side fails and the tower tilts. Why would global collapse then occur? The mass above is restrained to drop by the other half of columns.
So the tilting tower impacts on the structure below ... and should still bounce. Only half the energy is released, absorbed as compression and then stopped. Then the other half drops down on the other side, the rest of the energy is released after two seconds and the same thing happens. No collapse. Very good actually to spread out the release of energy over longer time because then the possibility to overload the structure is reduced considerably.

Thanks for pointing out that there is not ONE sudden impact on the structure below but TWO or more, smaller ones separated by 2 or more seconds. Another reason for no global collapse to ensue.

This guy is not for real surely?

 

[Dave Rogers]

So I'll assume your answer to my question is that all things being equal, we should expect the uppermost, weakest welds to fail first in the collision.

This, of course, would mean that you would guess that the upper block which is "crushing down" would very quickly lose it's rigidity. The strongest columns in the core of the upper block would split into their component parts and lose their structural rigidity.

Please feel free to attribute to me any opinions you would care to list about the finely detailed predictions of a model which I have already said is too simplified to make any such predictions, if it makes you happy. They may not have any relation to my actual opinions about the collapse mechanism, but don't let that get in the way of you fantasising that I'm the interlocutor in your Socratic argument.

Dave

 

[Apollo20]

Heiwa,

The upper sections of both towers tip, AND CONTINUE TO TIP for the first few seconds of the collapse. There is no bounce! Why not? Because the perimeter columns in the impact zone fail. Why do they fail? Mainly because the impact forces are not vertical, but off-axis by about 3 degrees. This imposes lateral forces on columns that fail in shear, NOT COMPRESSION. (The columns were not designed to take lateral impact forces!) Eventually the columns that form the rotational hinge also fail, and the collapse takes on a strictly vertical motion. At this point Bazant's crush-down model becomes a good approximation to the dynamics of the remaining collapse.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Heiwa,

The upper sections of both towers tip, AND CONTINUE TO TIP for the first few seconds of the collapse. There is no bounce! Why not? Because the perimeter columns in the impact zone fail. Why do they fail? Mainly because the impact forces are not vertical, but off-axis by about 3 degrees. This imposes lateral forces on columns that fail in shear, NOT COMPRESSION. (The columns were not designed to take lateral impact forces!) Eventually the columns that form the rotational hinge also fail, and the collapse takes on a strictly vertical motion. At this point Bazant's crush-down model becomes a good approximation to the dynamics of the remaining collapse.

Dr. Greening, Heiwa isn't exactly grounded in reality. He does things like convert the potential energy of the block above into equivalent liters of gasoline, then conclude that this amount of gasoline isn't significant and thus couldn't damage anything like steel. He didn't actually do real calculations.

I've directed him to the calculations I've done on this strength, after which he put me on ignore for me an "imposter" because my numbers, though calculated correctly, conflict with his opinion of reality.

Remember the columns will fail from axial impacts only, even with (3) - 90 degree plastic hinges.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,

The upper sections of both towers tip, AND CONTINUE TO TIP for the first few seconds of the collapse. There is no bounce! Why not? Because the perimeter columns in the impact zone fail. Why do they fail? Mainly because the impact forces are not vertical, but off-axis by about 3 degrees. This imposes lateral forces on columns that fail in shear, NOT COMPRESSION. (The columns were not designed to take lateral impact forces!) Eventually the columns that form the rotational hinge also fail, and the collapse takes on a strictly vertical motion. At this point Bazant's crush-down model becomes a good approximation to the dynamics of the remaining collapse.

It doesn't matter how the columns in the initiation zone failed because ... it is not the topic. Whatever happens before the time of cause - release of potential energy - is not the subject of my article or Urich's paper.

It is what happen after the time of cause = the release of potential energy. And you agree - vertical motion of the mass above.

I have calculated how much that potential energy is. Bazant and Nist didn't do that correctly.

When there is a collision between two bodies, in this case at the time of effect (the collision), which takes place at very low speed you would expect the speed of the impacting body to slow down! Either to zero and bounce back (negative velocity!) or at a much reduced speed. No such deceleration is observed = there was no impact.

Then Bazant and Nist suggest that this energy exceeds the strain energy of the structure without really calculate the strain energy or doing it incorrectly.

I show in my article that the energy applied to the structure below will temporily compress it a little (using a spring as example, like Bazant) and concludes that no global collapse ensues. Too little potential energy. Urich does the same using another way but in principle Urich and I use the same basic methods.

Nist has retracted from the release of potential energy cause and suggests now that some floors fell down and caused global collapse.

To be frank - that explanation (and Nist) is unscientific garbish straight from Alice in Wonderland.

Ask Nist if anybody peer reviewed their FAQs December 2007. They will not answer. They hide behind a dark veil.

I wonder why all these strange signatures above wonder about me personally. They should wonder about the findings in the papers ... and evidently about themselves. Why do they believe in Alice and Santa Claus?

 

[beachnut]

It doesn't matter how the columns in the initiation zone failed because ... it is not the topic. Whatever happens before the time of cause - release of potential energy - is not the subject of my article or Urich's paper.

It is what happen after the time of cause = the release of potential energy. And you agree - vertical motion of the mass above.

I have calculated how much that potential energy is. Bazant and Nist didn't do that correctly.

When there is a collision between two bodies, in this case at the time of effect (the collision), which takes place at very low speed you would expect the speed of the impacting body to slow down! Either to zero and bounce back (negative velocity!) or at a much reduced speed. No such deceleration is observed = there was no impact.

Then Bazant and Nist suggest that this energy exceeds the strain energy of the structure without really calculate the strain energy or doing it incorrectly.

I show in my article that the energy applied to the structure below will temporily compress it a little (using a spring as example, like Bazant) and concludes that no global collapse ensues. Too little potential energy. Urich does the same using another way but in principle Urich and I use the same basic methods.

Nist has retracted from the release of potential energy cause and suggests now that some floors fell down and caused global collapse.

To be frank - that explanation (and Nist) is unscientific garbish straight from Alice in Wonderland.

Ask Nist if anybody peer reviewed their FAQs December 2007. They will not answer. They hide behind a dark veil.

I wonder why all these strange signatures above wonder about me personally. They should wonder about the findings in the papers ... and evidently about themselves. Why do they believe in Alice and Santa Claus?

Yep, you got us with the Alice stuff and how could Santa be more cogent than your fantasy BS junk. This one post is so stupid even some 5th grade students can see your FRAUD. Frank was being nice to you and your fantasy junk science failure.

 

[funk de fino]

heiwa

Please define what you mean by "garbish"?

Is it garbage you mean to say?

If so, your paper is full of it

 

[twinstead]

I wonder why all these strange signatures above wonder about me personally. They should wonder about the findings in the papers ... and evidently about themselves. Why do they believe in Alice and Santa Claus?

And these highly-regarded, internationally known experts who contributed to the NIST would rightly look you square in the eye and tell you that you're nuts and you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

The only thing they would wonder about is how somebody who isn't fit to clean their chalkboards would be so arrogant.

 

[Belz...]

When there is a collision between two bodies, in this case at the time of effect (the collision), which takes place at very low speed you would expect the speed of the impacting body to slow down! Either to zero and bounce back (negative velocity!) or at a much reduced speed. No such deceleration is observed = there was no impact.

Yeah... slow speeds. I guess those mechanical presses don't really exist, because if they did they'd bounce back because of the speed...

 

[beachnut]

When there is a collision between two bodies, in this case at the time of effect (the collision), which takes place at very low speed you would expect the speed of the impacting body to slow down! Either to zero and bounce back (negative velocity!) or at a much reduced speed. No such deceleration is observed = there was no impact.

I show in my article that the energy applied to the structure below will temporily compress it a little (using a spring as example, like Bazant) and concludes that no global collapse ensues. Too little potential energy. Urich does the same using another way but in principle Urich and I use the same basic methods.

You are posting stupid statements. The slow moving mass is not going to slow down because you the floating boat man forgot we are not floating but falling. The slow mass is really an accelerating mass. You ignore GRAVITY. This statement of slow really applies to your ideas on 9/11!

Urich is a 9/11 truth member, he is bias, he has not completed his model, he attacks a model which shows it is possible! He is a fool he has over looked the key; how much can a floor hold (he can't tell you). The floors hold the WTC together, if you destroy a floor, you destroy the WTC strength. Greg is a 9/11 truth member he is looking at a cross sectional strength for the destruction of the WTC. He will fail, because his model has to have EXPLOSIVES/THERMITE, there were no explosives (Jones made up thermite, and Greg joined his group of misleading 9/11 truthers), just Greg seeing things. Greg has no idea what to do next, and it is funny as you think he has something you can point to as fact, as he knows your paper is junk as he showed you.

 

[Heiwa]

The floors hold the WTC together, if you destroy a floor, you destroy the WTC strength.

Exactly - this is what the Nist experts and highly-regarded, internationally known experts who contributed to the NIST suggest in the amazing Nist FAQ December 2007.

One (or more) floor drops down and the whole tower collapses.

The walls were just there to put windows in. And the columns had no real purpose.

Forget butterflies colliding with the towers, fires, release of potential energy, strain energy of the structure.

Beachnut, I am impressed. Your contribution here is really helpful. Like Belznut's, twinsnut's, funknut's, Davenut's, bjenut's, statenut's, 16.5nut's. Very high intellectual standard. Nutty! Now I understand why you believe planes actually hit the towers in the first place. You have watched too much television.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The walls were just there to put windows in. And the columns had no real purpose.

Remember folks, Heiwa's analogy of the WTC is a birdcage. He has no concept of how the floors give 100% of the stability to the columns.

 

[uk_dave]

Remember folks, Heiwa's analogy of the WTC is a birdcage. He has no concept of how the floors give 100% of the stability to the columns.

Don't worry. I think most people here are fully aware of what Heiwa doesn't know.

 

[beachnut]

Exactly - this is what the Nist experts and highly-regarded, internationally known experts who contributed to the NIST suggest in the amazing Nist FAQ December 2007.

Sources? Just hearsay?

One (or more) floor drops down and the whole tower collapses.

Oops, it was 12 and 28, or so. You need to study the WTC more so you do not make order of magnitude errors.

The walls were just there to put windows in. And the columns had no real purpose.

The WTC was a system, you need to study more and stop making silly statements.

Forget butterflies colliding with the towers, fires, release of potential energy, strain energy of the structure.

That is what you did in your paper?

Beachnut, I am impressed. Your contribution here is really helpful. Like Belznut's, twinsnut's, funknut's, Davenut's, bjenut's, statenut's, 16.5nut's. Very high intellectual standard. Nutty! Now I understand why you believe planes actually hit the towers in the first place. You have watched too much television.

Actually I have read your paper and shown you few major, gross errors. Other have show you more. Why do you ignore them? Your paper is not correct. Even your 9/11 truth movement member support, Gregory, knows you paper is incorrect.

 

[Major_Tom]

Sorry, Dave. I didn't mean to focus on you. I assumed you would be able to give an answer.

The simple question was:

We know that the large, large majority of core box columns failed at weld connections before suffering any permanent distortion.



Just based on the principle that bigger tends to be stronger, where would you think the first weld breakage would occur just after impact?


Wouldn't the welds in the "upper block" tend to fail first?

I can understand why a person trying to defend a model which uses an "upper block" to "crush a lower block" would want to avoid the fact that the weakest welds in the colliding columns are in the upper block, not the lower block.

Since no one seems able to address Argument #1, I'll temporarily summerize the first argument as follows:


The Bazant model is wrong to apply a spring-mass, upper block-lower block model to the WTC "collapses".

They failed to recognize that the impacting columns themselves contain 41 weld points, the weakest of which will most probably be in the UPPER block.

They failed to recognize that overwhelming forensic evidence shows that core box column clearly separated from one another along weld surfaces and only a small minority of them were seen to have suffered any permanent plastic deformation at all.

Therefore the impact between the relatively massive lower column with the much smaller upper column, with it's relatively weaker weld nodes, would likely lead to the shattering of the upper column into smaller components along weld nodes before any permanent plastic deformation takes place.


End of argument #1.


A mental knee-jerk reaction to the reality of weld "failure" is that this means the towers would fall even easier that Bazant anticipated, hence "inevitable and total" failure is to be expected all the more.

But when we examine the physical characteristics of the "collapses" of WTC 1 and 2 and see that core box column weld "failure" must have occurred in a systematic, top-down fashion to explain the observed phenomena, we will notice some serious problems with a systematic top-down rapid collapse based on progressive "weld failure".

 

[stateofgrace]

Exactly - this is what the Nist experts and highly-regarded, internationally known experts who contributed to the NIST suggest in the amazing Nist FAQ December 2007.

One (or more) floor drops down and the whole tower collapses.

The walls were just there to put windows in. And the columns had no real purpose.

Forget butterflies colliding with the towers, fires, release of potential energy, strain energy of the structure.

Beachnut, I am impressed. Your contribution here is really helpful. Like Belznut's, twinsnut's, funknut's, Davenut's, bjenut's, statenut's, 16.5nut's. Very high intellectual standard. Nutty! Now I understand why you believe planes actually hit the towers in the first place. You have watched too much television.

Please stop posting.

Just stop.

 

[funk de fino]

Sorry, Dave. I didn't mean to focus on you. I assumed you would be able to give an answer.

The simple question was:




I can understand why a person trying to defend a model which uses an "upper block" to "crush a lower block" would want to avoid the fact that the weakest welds in the colliding columns are in the upper block, not the lower block.

Since no one seems able to address Argument #1, I'll temporarily summerize the first argument as follows:

The Bazant model is wrong to apply a spring-mass, upper block-lower block model to the WTC "collapses".

They failed to recognize that the impacting columns themselves contain 41 weld points, the weakest of which will most probably be in the UPPER block.

They failed to recognize that overwhelming forensic evidence shows that core box column clearly separated from one another along weld surfaces and only a small minority of them were seen to have suffered any permanent plastic deformation at all.
Therefore the impact between the relatively massive lower column with the much smaller upper column, with it's relatively weaker weld nodes, would likely lead to the shattering of the upper column into smaller components along weld nodes before any permanent plastic deformation takes place.


End of argument #1.


A mental knee-jerk reaction to the reality of weld "failure" is that this means the towers would fall even easier that Bazant anticipated, hence "inevitable and total" failure is to be expected all the more.

But when we examine the physical characteristics of the "collapses" of WTC 1 and 2 and see that core box column weld "failure" must have occurred in a systematic, top-down fashion to explain the observed phenomena, we will notice some serious problems with a systematic top-down rapid collapse based on progressive "weld failure".

How many and who inspected them to assess they had NO deformation at all?

How much deformation would have been needed before a weld broke?

I am not being arsey here I would just like to know where you got this information from.

 

[Gravy]

How many and who inspected them to assess they had NO deformation at all?

How much deformation would have been needed before a weld broke?

I am not being arsey here I would just like to know where you got this information from.

Being a dishonest person, Major Tom knows he's wrong but chooses to repeat this claim anyway.

Most of the core columns recovered were significantly deformed, which made it difficult to select undeformed regions to harvest test specimens from. Even the relatively straight sections were often slightly bent.

NIST NCSTAR 1-3D "Mechanical properties of structural steel," page 48 (82 in the PDF).

 

[DGM]

Sorry, Dave. I didn't mean to focus on you. I assumed you would be able to give an answer.

The simple question was:




I can understand why a person trying to defend a model which uses an "upper block" to "crush a lower block" would want to avoid the fact that the weakest welds in the colliding columns are in the upper block, not the lower block.

Since no one seems able to address Argument #1, I'll temporarily summerize the first argument as follows:


The Bazant model is wrong to apply a spring-mass, upper block-lower block model to the WTC "collapses".

They failed to recognize that the impacting columns themselves contain 41 weld points, the weakest of which will most probably be in the UPPER block.

They failed to recognize that overwhelming forensic evidence shows that core box column clearly separated from one another along weld surfaces and only a small minority of them were seen to have suffered any permanent plastic deformation at all.

Therefore the impact between the relatively massive lower column with the much smaller upper column, with it's relatively weaker weld nodes, would likely lead to the shattering of the upper column into smaller components along weld nodes before any permanent plastic deformation takes place.


End of argument #1.


A mental knee-jerk reaction to the reality of weld "failure" is that this means the towers would fall even easier that Bazant anticipated, hence "inevitable and total" failure is to be expected all the more.

But when we examine the physical characteristics of the "collapses" of WTC 1 and 2 and see that core box column weld "failure" must have occurred in a systematic, top-down fashion to explain the observed phenomena, we will notice some serious problems with a systematic top-down rapid collapse based on progressive "weld failure".

Tell you what, Why don't you put together a start to finish analysis in the form of a written paper and we will get back to you.

In other words, Get to the point!!!!!!! you've been beating around the bush for months now, Present your hypothesis so we can move on.

 

[CHF]

Remember folks, Heiwa's analogy of the WTC is a birdcage. He has no concept of how the floors give 100% of the stability to the columns.

Judy Wood, Richard Gage, now Heiwa....

If these people don't understand buildings, no one does.