DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
I'm curious...
How you determine that?
Do you know how many column there were?
How many of them have you seen?
How do you determine if a column was bent?
RFC: Bazant and Zhou Simple Analysis refuted
- Thread starter GregoryUrich
- Start date
How you determine that?
Do you know how many column there were?
How many of them have you seen?
How do you determine if a column was bent?
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,316
I'm not Major Tom but:
Major Tom has collected nearly every available photo and perused them thoroughly.
# Core columns = 1800 (approx)
Hundreds. (I've looked through the whole set.)
Look at it in a photo. We are talking about obviously buckled vs appears straight.
It would be good if we had some real numbers here MT: # columns, # buckled, # photos, etc.
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,316
What? How dare you use my own work against me!
I may have comments about this later.
Your comments is either that I can't read or can't add. Guilty as charged. The number should be 384 MJ.
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
Thanks I figure that number would be objectively available and I will assume you are correct.
How do you know you are looking at unique columns and not just different views of some of them.
Yes, it's obvious, but that doesn't address my question now does it. Of the "hundreds" you've seen, it's apparently been determined that most of them were not bent, how do you know they were not bent?
Of course this all leads to a bigger question of "so what?". Major Tom and Greg don't think enough columns were bent, so what? Why should I care what you think? Where is your analysis regarding how many columns should have been or not been bent along with their locations within the towers.
If you collect enough photos of a particular area, there is hardly an object in that area which you cannot see in multiple photos from multiple angles.
I'll use one example of a photo album that focuses only on the North Tower debris field, located at
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...m_op=view&PHPWS_Album_id=1&MMN_position=99:99
There are over 90 photos covering the exact same area.
After looking at so many photos of the exact same area, you really begin to know the contour of the space and the objects in it.
It would be very difficult to find any object in the field that isn't observable from multiple angles.
When you collect and look at these for a long time, when someone shows you a photo with an identifiable landmark in it you can recognize quickly where you are in the rubble.
When you suggest that simply from photos you cannot tell if a 38 foot column is bent or straight I become a bit confused. Nobody is looking for lasar accuracy.
What all this lshows me is that many people never really looked at these things.
You know that when you are talking to somebody who has a giant pimple on their face it is a bit hard not to notice. Well, the characteristic straightness of the core box columns in the rubble is something like that.
When people can't notice the pattern even after I point it out to them, I begin to wonder if they aren't a bit blind.
I would doubt the entire validity of this approach -- reliance on photos, taken unsystematically by various people. It's another of these, "It looks like/ sounds like X" methods which works only in very limited ways (and this kind of historical-forensic investigation is not one of them).
Rely on the science, instead. How materials behave. Not how they look or sound.
Rely on the science, instead. How materials behave. Not how they look or sound.
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
The gist of the argument seems to be:
1. A vastly simplified model, designed to be conservative against sustained collapse, assumes that lots of the potential energy released in the collapse will be absorbed by the formation of multiple sharp inelastic bends in the columns before they fracture.
2. The actual columns in the rubble don't exhibit these sharp bends; instead, the columns (though careful measurement revealed that most were bent to some degree) snapped at the welds.
Therefore,
3a. The model is too conservative against collapse because clearly the formation of multiple sharp inelastic bends in the columns did not occur and therefore could not have absorbed large amounts of energy, leaving even more energy to sustain collapse than the analysis based on the simplified model suggests.
or
3b. Collapse from gravity alone could not have occurred.
... and the argument is whether 3a or 3b is the conclusion that should be drawn.
Does that about sum it up? Or am I missing something?
Respectfully,
Myriad
1. A vastly simplified model, designed to be conservative against sustained collapse, assumes that lots of the potential energy released in the collapse will be absorbed by the formation of multiple sharp inelastic bends in the columns before they fracture.
2. The actual columns in the rubble don't exhibit these sharp bends; instead, the columns (though careful measurement revealed that most were bent to some degree) snapped at the welds.
Therefore,
3a. The model is too conservative against collapse because clearly the formation of multiple sharp inelastic bends in the columns did not occur and therefore could not have absorbed large amounts of energy, leaving even more energy to sustain collapse than the analysis based on the simplified model suggests.
or
3b. Collapse from gravity alone could not have occurred.
... and the argument is whether 3a or 3b is the conclusion that should be drawn.
Does that about sum it up? Or am I missing something?
Respectfully,
Myriad
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
Looks like you nailed it.
Not sure where GU is coming from-though he seems to lean toward 3(b), but 3(b) is definitly where Major_tom is coming from...
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,316
I'm trying to come from a place where if a reliable explanation is provided, I will accept it. Earlier today I was at 3a.2, but right now I'm at 3a.7 (3b coming after 3a.9).
I agree with Major Tom that there is insignificant evidence of column buckling other than at welded joints. This implies a 6 story buckle (assuming 3 hinges) using less energy for deforming the columns but possibly even more energy to overcome the horizontal members, floors and floors trusses--followed by a 6 story freefall. Einsteens video analyses would have caught this by showing varying accelerations.
Gregory Urich:
The first five impacts of a momentum transfer model of the collapse of WTC 1 takes only about 2.5 seconds. In this time interval the building is calculated to have dropped by about 16 meters. This time is confirmed by observation: The upper section of WTC 1 has been measured to drop ~ 18 meters in 2.5 seconds. The velocity at this point is about 16 m/s and the acceleration is thus about 6 m/s^2. To now expect to see changes in this acceleration in a 2.5 second time interval is not realistic or feasible.
The first five impacts of a momentum transfer model of the collapse of WTC 1 takes only about 2.5 seconds. In this time interval the building is calculated to have dropped by about 16 meters. This time is confirmed by observation: The upper section of WTC 1 has been measured to drop ~ 18 meters in 2.5 seconds. The velocity at this point is about 16 m/s and the acceleration is thus about 6 m/s^2. To now expect to see changes in this acceleration in a 2.5 second time interval is not realistic or feasible.
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
A little hint for you:
One of the things budding engineers learn early is that
without post-weld heat treatment, welds tend to be the weakest part of the structure.
Go back and look at the premises leading to the 3a conclusion.
ETA: And by the way:
The welds were never intended to take ANY, repeat, ANY tension loading. None. Zilch. Nada. Zero.
What happens when you start trying to bend a large member at the root (weld)?
Amazingly enough, the outer fiber (weld) is in..
....are you ready?...
wait for it......
YES!!! We have Tension!
Last edited:
blast less, silent explosives with radio controlled fuses
Now we have Major Tom with silent and no blast effect explosives!
The old 4 years too late idea was thermite, now we have radio controlled, blast less, silent explosives. It is funny watching the truther engineers trying to back in explosives.
The sad fact is you fail to realize this is how a gravity collapse looks like after a big aircraft impacts at a KE of 2,000 pound of TNT, then you have 10,000 gallons of fuel with the energy of 315 tons of TNT (for you that is 630,000 pounds of TNT!), and then the buildings fail, and the millions of pounds of the upper section fail the floors below. Yes the floors are failing due to an over weight condition, the floors fail, liberating the exterior, and the excess weight along with the KE of the mass falling destroys sections of the CORE as the mass continues to destroy floors who can not hold more the 29,000,000 pounds! With over 11 floor falling any distance, the floors below are over loaded! And the building fails (not to count that first failure mode with over 60,000,000 pounds!)
I am just talking floor loads, gee, you throw in the total weight of the top and you have way too much mass for the floor blow to take. But I do not have to destroy the building, just overloading a floor with over 29,000,000 pounds, and you have floor failure, and when that floor fails the nest one goes because there is more mass! I do not care how much mass is ejected, because all we need is the mass from the floors, the shell and CORE are not needed but can impact the floors below. Darn the core has to transit either down thought the core or through the floors.
What does the top 12 floors with shell and core weigh? 60,000,000 pounds? And one floor can hold only 29,000,000 pounds! This means all we need is the top floors to fail onto the lower floors and we have failure, who needs the whole building? If you are calculating some magical cross-sectional strength, you are making an error. Give me a simple model of collapse, per floor, and I will show you a shell being stripped and shedding steel allover, and a core being destroyed at the seams with unexpected lateral loads in excess of 145 tons of TNT KE all over the place!
What Major Tom has shown us is the KE damage from the building in the form of columns all over 19 acres of WTC complex.
We have a few irrational truther engineers calculating weight and false ideas on 9/11 trying to back in explosives, silent, then you add Major Tom blast less, and radio controls, you have a made up story!
Blind? You used radio controlled bombs to get your twisted pattern of stupid. With zero blast effect or noise you fantasy idea fails before you start.
Now we have Major Tom with silent and no blast effect explosives!
The old 4 years too late idea was thermite, now we have radio controlled, blast less, silent explosives. It is funny watching the truther engineers trying to back in explosives.
The sad fact is you fail to realize this is how a gravity collapse looks like after a big aircraft impacts at a KE of 2,000 pound of TNT, then you have 10,000 gallons of fuel with the energy of 315 tons of TNT (for you that is 630,000 pounds of TNT!), and then the buildings fail, and the millions of pounds of the upper section fail the floors below. Yes the floors are failing due to an over weight condition, the floors fail, liberating the exterior, and the excess weight along with the KE of the mass falling destroys sections of the CORE as the mass continues to destroy floors who can not hold more the 29,000,000 pounds! With over 11 floor falling any distance, the floors below are over loaded! And the building fails (not to count that first failure mode with over 60,000,000 pounds!)
I am just talking floor loads, gee, you throw in the total weight of the top and you have way too much mass for the floor blow to take. But I do not have to destroy the building, just overloading a floor with over 29,000,000 pounds, and you have floor failure, and when that floor fails the nest one goes because there is more mass! I do not care how much mass is ejected, because all we need is the mass from the floors, the shell and CORE are not needed but can impact the floors below. Darn the core has to transit either down thought the core or through the floors.
What does the top 12 floors with shell and core weigh? 60,000,000 pounds? And one floor can hold only 29,000,000 pounds! This means all we need is the top floors to fail onto the lower floors and we have failure, who needs the whole building? If you are calculating some magical cross-sectional strength, you are making an error. Give me a simple model of collapse, per floor, and I will show you a shell being stripped and shedding steel allover, and a core being destroyed at the seams with unexpected lateral loads in excess of 145 tons of TNT KE all over the place!
What Major Tom has shown us is the KE damage from the building in the form of columns all over 19 acres of WTC complex.
We have a few irrational truther engineers calculating weight and false ideas on 9/11 trying to back in explosives, silent, then you add Major Tom blast less, and radio controls, you have a made up story!
Last edited:
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
How do you know?
Yet he is completely unaware of all the photos that show clearly deformed core box columns, but if he were aware, he'd claim that they weren't deformed while in place, except for the columns that he wants you to believe were deformed while in place, like the two on previous pages of this thread. Raise your standards, Gregory. Major Tom is incompetent, dishonest, and immature.
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
The welds did have some strength. We looked at this in another thread and it appears they had at least 50% of the strength of the column in bending. The weld retains much of the moment of inertia of the column and the E70 weld metal is stronger than the A36 parent material.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Go right ahead, Major Tom: tell us which of those columns is undeformed, and what criteria you use to make that judgment. I await your reply.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
How do you disagree with NIST's simple explanation in its December FAQ?
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Oh, look, Major Tom is stumbling upon some of the many photos of bent core box columns.
Major Tom, you have repeatedly run from this question. It isn't going away. Do not make me ask it again. When did the damage to those columns occur?
Last edited:
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
"The weld" is not just the filler material
There is an area outside the actual weld, called the "Heat Affected Zone" where the cracks will actually start, which is more brittle, and weaker.
It ain't bending--its local effects--like outer fiber tension--a load path and condition that was never intended, never designed for, and likely, fatal.
A crack starts in the outer fiber, further weakening the beam (column), increasing the stress, enlarging the crack, further reducing area, increasing local stress, causing the crack to grow, reducing the area, increasing stress, causing the crack to grow----do you need more, mr "engineer"?
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
In the December 2007 FAQ NIST claims a dynamic amplification of 2.0 due to sudden loading, which is a maximum for sudden loading. One problem with that is that with Greg Urich's mass analysis and the core columns cross section being known it shows that the central core had a factor of safety of 3.0 and the perimeter a factor of safety of 5.0, when considering gravity loads only.