RFC: Bazant and Zhou Simple Analysis refuted

[Major_Tom]

As I have been saying for a long time, you must understand the representative conditions of these columns.

When you realize that the large, large majority of these columns, the overwhelming majority, are not even dented and have cleanly squared-off ends after having the same buildings fall on them, than the damaged ones are worth noting.

If you honestly believe that many of these core box columns were "mangled", then another mangled column doesn't mean anything.


Most of the readers here will never understand that.

Go Hawks!


The core box columns were not "mangled". They were preserved extremely well.

I collect representative photos, not individual photos.


This is how I know that Steven Jones was not telling the truth about "angle cuts".


This is how I know that buckling was neither the collapse mechanism in the core nor the perimeter.

This is now I know that molten "pools" of metal was nothing but a lie.


And this is how I know that your collapse initiation mechanism is just another lie.


If you believe in individual photos without understanding the larger context, ANYONE CAN FOOL YOU.


It is easy to fake an individual photo. It is easy to smash up an individual beam and take a picture of it.

But you cannot manipulate representative collections.

 

[Gravy]

This is how I know that buckling was neither the collapse mechanism in the core nor the perimeter.

And this is how I know that your collapse initiation mechanism is just another lie.

And this is how we know that you're incapable of learning. How sad.

 

[Gravy]

Your move. Please produce some representative damaged core columns from the collapse initiation zones or simply admit that you can't.

How many core columns were able to matched with as-built locations in the collapse initiation zones? I know. Do you, Major Tom? You'd better.

I await your continued intellectual cowardice.

 

[Major_Tom]

Show them to me , Gravy. If you can't, then there is very little difference between your approach and that of Steven Jones.

Show or you are lying, too.

 

[DavidJames]

I think the ultimate refutation of the Bazant paper is the inability of anyone to find sets of buckled columns from the collapse initiation zones.

Only in the bizarro world of CTists can a scientific paper have "ultimate refutation" by a guy looking at pictures.

 

[Gravy]

Show them to me , Gravy. If you can't, then there is very little difference between your approach and that of Steven Jones.

Show or you are lying, too.

Ha! I called it. The intellectual cowardice continues. Second time: how many core columns were able to matched with as-built locations in the collapse initiation zones? I know. Do you, Major Tom? You'd better.

 

[twinstead]

Only in the bizarro world of CTists can a scientific paper have "ultimate refutation" by a guy looking at pictures.

Dude. Pictures are da bomb.

 

[Major_Tom]

Nobody is showing any images of the buckled columns in the collapse initiation zone.

I really thought that you folks could come up with at least a few.


Could it be true that the entire basis of ones belief that they exist simply be faith in the word of NIST?


I've been referring to people who blindly believe in the "thermite angle cuts" Steven Jones and the AE911 Truth folks feed the world as "The Cult of the Great Angle Cut".

I learned that the "great angle cut" is just disinfo by carefully studying the rubble.


I am sensing that the weakness in your entire argument and the Bazant collapse mechanism is the lack of buckled columns from the collapse initiation regions.

I know that some rather intelligent people do post in this forum and in all fairness I would like to give you gentlemen a little time to show me that the entire basis of your argument is not simply belief in people you may consider "authorities" and "experts".

As of this moment I would like to give some of the wiser folks posting here a chance to show me some actual evidence for your belief in collective buckling of core columns in the collapse initiation zones.


Dave? Apollo20? NB? Myriad? cmcaulif if you are reading? Others who answer with reason?

I know you must have some sounder reason for believing that core column heat-induced buckling was a major cause of collapse initiation than mere faith in NIST.


Could you please help me understand your reasons for believing so?

We know the most essential core columns were in rows 500 and 1000, and columns 601, 608, 901 and 908.


Showing me only one supposed column from 602 sitting in a parking lot taken from an angle where we cannot even inspect the "heat-induced buckle" just doesn't cut it.

Norseman?


Is your assumption based only on faith?

Faith in NIST?


Please don't let Gravy's dribblings be the best you have to offer. You must have more than faith and insults.

 

[Gravy]

Third time, Major Tom: how many core columns were able to be matched with as-built locations in the collapse initiation zones? I know. Do you, Major Tom? You'd better, if you're going to keep raising this issue.

Answer the question now, please.

 

[bje]

Nobody is showing any images of the buckled columns in the collapse initiation zone.

Here we go again, repetition of the standard 9/11 Truther fallacy...

"If you can't show me a picture, it didn't happen."

 

[Furcifer]

Does anyone know what the max load at fracture for the welds on the box columns is? (or some average based on plate thickness?) I'm not sure if I've ever encountered it in the NIST report.

 

[Major_Tom]

I'll keep coming back to the question of faith as opposed to documented photographic evidence.

While we are waiting for a legitimate reply from someone I'd like to show you some important clues to understanding the collapse initiation as it applies to the infamous east face of WTC 2.

This, of course, is the best example of inward pulling of perimeter columns seen.

Let's look at that face below.

Notice the location of the mechanical room relative to floor 81 where the inward belding will form.

The mechanical room has noticably higher ceilings than the other floors both above and below.

I believe I have located where a number of perimeter columns of this mechanical room were found in the rubble. Could this be some of them?

These perimeter columns are clearly speared into the earth.

They were pushed outwards and fell close to 80 floors. They were then speared into the earth with obvious extreme force.

Despite this, they held up well and exhibit no noticable buckling along their lengths.

As odd as that may seem, it is the location at which they were found that is even more surprising.

The following 2 photos will help us identify their location.

These columns were located on the edge of the street on the other side of WTC 4.

They were some of the farthest columns spotted in that direction.

Lets look at a map of the complex.

These columns cleared the entire WTC 4 building.



If you recall, the perimeter a few floors above the mechanical room was seen being pulled INWARD just before collapse initiation and entire upper block leaned southeast and crushed the perimeter below by it's DOWNWARD motion.

I, too, just assumed that the mechanical room perimeter columns on the east face would be crushed and pushed downwards.



So how did they get all the way out here, clearly unbuckled and speared into the ground?

Don't the large number of perimeter sections lying peeled outwards and retaining many of their spandrel plate bolt connections intact, also clearly unbucked, hold vital clues as to how the "collapse progression" occurred along the east side of WTC 2?

I have many more photos of these perimeter column "sheets" which we can look at.

 

[Major_Tom]

Does anyone know what the max load at fracture for the welds on the box columns is? (or some average based on plate thickness?) I'm not sure if I've ever encountered it in the NIST report.

Great question. And their ability to handle some torque. Their ability to "sway".

Anyone know?

 

[DGM]

Major Tom:
You are looking more and more irrational with every post. You need to deal with the sounds (and other blast effects) involved with what you are suggesting. To give a column a "kick" like you suggest requires a large amount of explosives.

Your collection of photos are exceptional. Why waste this effort with irrational behavior? Why not deal with this inconvenient problem while there are still people willing to listen and rationalize the arguments you may possess?

 

[Major_Tom]

To give a column a "kick" like you suggest requires a large amount of explosives.

Depends on the column and on the weld.

Newtons Bit and others have been talking about how the welds are very vulnerable to a short, sharp lateral movement.

The idea is that the column would be not under load when the kick is applied, so it simply needs to act on the weld and displace the column slightly.


I was hopng some of the folks here with more knowledge about welds could help us understand just how small a device one could get away with.


Please notice that the outward peeling of the east perimeter of the South Tower and the location of many of the mechanical room perimeter columns mentioned 2 of my posts ago can go a long way in determining what outward forces were involved in collapse initiation along that facade.

Thanks for the compliment concerning the photos. Many more high quality photos are being converted to a web-safe form and will appear very soon.

 

[Norseman]

............
So how did they get all the way out here, clearly unbuckled and speared into the ground?

Don't the large number of perimeter sections lying peeled outwards and retaining many of their spandrel plate bolt connections intact, also clearly unbucked, hold vital clues as to how the "collapse progression" occurred along the east side of WTC 2?

I have many more photos of these perimeter column "sheets" which we can look at.

Major Tom, notice the large wall section coming out of the dust cloud after the upper block has passed. That is the east exterior wall of the lower block pivoting out after being pushed outwards by the upper falling block. Where do you think do upper part of that wall section will land?

 

[Heiwa]

Why do you keep linking to a worthless paper? You are demonstrably incompetent to write a paper on the collapses of the Twin Towers.

?? You have apparently not done my simple model test for children at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6 . Do it ... and shut up!

Evidently a little fire in the initiation zone of WTC1 does not cause global collapse as alleged by NIST and Bazant with a result as shown in all pictures of rubble above.

Do not be incivil in arguing your point. If you cannot be civil, you will be suspended or banned.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[WildCat]

Evidently a little fire in the initiation zone of WTC1 does not cause global collapse as alleged by NIST and Bazant with a result as shown in all pictures of rubble above.

Why do you lie about the conclusions of Bazant and Zhou?

 

[DGM]

?? You have apparently not done my simple model test for children at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6 . Do it ... and shut up!

Evidently a little fire in the initiation zone of WTC1 does not cause global collapse as alleged by NIST and Bazant with a result as shown in all pictures of rubble above.

Try your experiment with rectangular tubing instead of pipe. The results are completely different. I suspect you already know this that is why you specified pipe. I'm a welder and a metal fabricator so don't try to BS me. Your experiment is junk and fatally flawed by design.
Why did you do that? Did you think because you wrote this for children no one would catch on?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Depends on the column and on the weld.

Newtons Bit and others have been talking about how the welds are very vulnerable to a short, sharp lateral movement.

The idea is that the column would be not under load when the kick is applied, so it simply needs to act on the weld and displace the column slightly.


I was hopng some of the folks here with more knowledge about welds could help us understand just how small a device one could get away with.


Please notice that the outward peeling of the east perimeter of the South Tower and the location of many of the mechanical room perimeter columns mentioned 2 of my posts ago can go a long way in determining what outward forces were involved in collapse initiation along that facade.

Thanks for the compliment concerning the photos. Many more high quality photos are being converted to a web-safe form and will appear very soon.

The photos are quite interesting. As for the welds, I have calculated what it would take to generate the fracture stress due to bending in the welds of one of the large 52 x 22 x 1.875 wall 500 or 1000 series box columns in the middle of the tower. The weld is only on the long sides of the column and the section modulus (I/c) of that weld would be 1092 in**3. If the weld material was E70 then at least 70,000 psi had to be generated to fully fracture it. Just considering the bending stress, and not the shear, and using the assumption of a force applied 72 inches below the weld, that force would need to be approximately 1 million pounds. How much explosive would be needed to generate that force on the side of the column I am not sure of but we do know that RDX generates pressures of 3 million psi so what you are saying seems plausible, although I wouldn't necessarily call it a small kick. These forces would also cause the column to bow inward adjacent to the blast making it appear as though some buckling had occurred at the top of the column. The core column that Newtons Bit showed a few days ago, which was on a flatbed truck, and was buckled up at its end, seems like it could have been damaged with the type of mechanism of which you speak.