RFC: Bazant and Zhou Simple Analysis refuted

[Tony Szamboti]

Photographs have been examined at a certain truther site ( you know where ) and it has been determined that is exactly what happened.

Or do you dispute ie?



I'd say that the proof lies:

in the hundreds of his peers that read it, and none challenged him on this.

The actual measurements of WTC 1 show the upper section was not in freefall during the 1st story of the drop and that Bazant was not correct here, so there really is nothing to discuss.

I should have mentioned that to begin with, instead of getting involved in this silly argument.

 

[GlennB]

Column splices are generally designed to maintain the strength of the column ....

Then why was the debris field almost entirely populated with steel members that had detached at the splices?

 

[Animal]

Seismic loading requires the splicing to be as strong (or nearly as strong) in bending, which is what buckling entails. That is not a pure tensile requirement.

Giving the tap dance shoes another work out I see

 

[twinstead]

I can't stress enough that simply repeating ones opinion in response to legitimate questions is boring as hell.

 

[funk de fino]

Column splices are generally designed to maintain the strength of the column and they wouldn't just fracture and let go after a few degrees of rotation either.

Again where are the tests or citations to back up this claim for fracture after a few degrees of column rotation permitting freefall acceleration through the first story of the fall in WTC 1?

Why did a large majority of the photos show just that then? Ask Major Tom. That was one of his earlier schtick I believe.

 

[tfk]

By design structural steel is extremely ductile and has an elongation of about 20% before fracture. To give you an idea, a 12 foot long buckling column would have to stretch over 2 feet before fracture. So there is no way they would fracture after a few degrees of rotation. That is smoke blowing nonsense. Where are Bazant's tests or citations showing what he claimed there?

Utter, incompetent bilge.

Also wrong.

Citing tensile failures (in which the column's geometric stability is guaranteed by the test conditions) is irrelevant in discussions of compressive buckling failures (in which the column's geometric stability has, BY DEFINITION, left the building) is ludicrous and incompetent.

Tony's suggestion that he could derive by digital-rectal extraction any information about buckling angle from tensile data is also wrong & ludicrous since it ignores the predominant factor that determines buckling angle (the member's distribution of mass about it neutral axis) which plays no role in tensile failure.

Tony's suggestion that fracture plays any significant role whatsoever in buckling failure is wrong. And, for an alleged mechanical engineer, incompetent. Columns made of ductile material rarely (perhaps never, I've never seen one) fracture at the deformations where they buckle.
___

Here's where Tony's irrelevant comparison to tension is also wrong:

As I recall, NCSTAR 1-6D stated that their analysis showed that some of the splice bolts did fail in tension when the core columns cooled & shrunk, putting some of those splice joints into tension.

And they failed at far, far less elongation than 2'. Rather at elongations (actually contractions) that were in the neighborhood of 3".

Column splices are generally designed to maintain the strength of the column and they wouldn't just fracture and let go after a few degrees of rotation either.

The strength of any design is critically dependant on its loading condition. Strength in one type of loading (e.g., compression) provides zero assurance of strength in a different type of loading (e.g., tension or bending).

The columns are a perfect example.

The splices were designed to be loaded principally in compression (ignoring wind loads, which were mostly countered by the external walls). In this case, the function of the splice design is to maintain the geometry of the two column ends, not to carry any of the load.

In tension, components that are never exposed to stress (bolts, splice plate welds & splice plates) are, in fact, stressed.

Note that this consideration becomes massively significant when the columns are loaded in bending plus compression instead of pure compression.

___

Last comment: Tony's attempt at a joker ("welds, or in this case, weld joints, are just as strong as the base materials") is an ideal that is rarely achieved in the real world, due to a number of reasons, including heat affected zones (HAZ), porosity in the welds, changes in alloy composition, etc.

See this reference for example.

The conclusion that the welds were a weak point is clearly demonstrated, in the case of the towers, by the fact that the location of the vast majority of column fractures in the debris at GZ was at the weld joints.

 

[tfk]

Tony's claim to have refuted Bazant is nonsense.

Bazant produced a limiting case analysis.

If Tony wants to introduce "reality based numbers", then we can do so. But let's do so honestly.

Bazant looked at a freefall of about 12 feet, producing an impact velocity of:

v = (2 g h)^1/2 = (2 * 12 * 32.2)^1/2 = 28 ft/sec

The reality is that the columns were 3 story components.

This results in a fall at about 2/3 g for 36 feet before there is any possibility for column ends to have produced Tony's (mythical, illusionary, delusionary) end to end contact.

With the "real" conditions, the impact velocity would have been

v = (2 g h)^1/2 = (2 * 36 * .67 * 32.2)^1/2 = 40 ft/sec

Similarly, prior to, during & after buckling, a 3 story column can provide far less resisting load than a 1 story column.

In all respects, Tony's attempt to bring in a single factor in his favor falls flat on its face.

What a surprise...


tk

PS. I haven't even looked at the arguments or numbers & I predict with confidence that Tony's claim about the energy absorbing capacity of the lower structure will also fall flat on its face.

An astonishing, breathtaking surprise would be if he were correct for once.

 

[beachnut]

The actual measurements of WTC 1 show the upper section was not in freefall during the 1st story of the drop and that Bazant was not correct here, so there really is nothing to discuss.

I should have mentioned that to begin with, instead of getting involved in this silly argument.

You don't understand models - that is what is exposed every-time you attack NIST and Bazant. An Engineer would not do this. An Engineer would present original work and never start with the "realcddeal" based on bias, and ignorance.

You have failed to refute anyone on anything related to 911. You claim it was CD, a fantasy backed with nothing.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony's claim to have refuted Bazant is nonsense.

Bazant produced a limiting case analysis.

If Tony wants to introduce "reality based numbers", then we can do so. But let's do so honestly.

Bazant looked at a freefall of about 12 feet, producing an impact velocity of:

v = (2 g h)^1/2 = (2 * 12 * 32.2)^1/2 = 28 ft/sec

The reality is that the columns were 3 story components.

This results in a fall at about 2/3 g for 36 feet before there is any possibility for column ends to have produced Tony's (mythical, illusionary, delusionary) end to end contact.

With the "real" conditions, the impact velocity would have been

v = (2 g h)^1/2 = (2 * 36 * .67 * 32.2)^1/2 = 40 ft/sec

Similarly, prior to, during & after buckling, a 3 story column can provide far less resisting load than a 1 story column.

In all respects, Tony's attempt to bring in a single factor in his favor falls flat on its face.

What a surprise...


tk

PS. I haven't even looked at the arguments or numbers & I predict with confidence that Tony's claim about the energy absorbing capacity of the lower structure will also fall flat on its face.

An astonishing, breathtaking surprise would be if he were correct for once.

So here we have an anonymous Internet person (who seems to be a wonder in his own mind) claiming that the columns in the twin towers couldn't contact each other until a new column was available three stories below. The buckling columns seem to have just been whisked away in his analysis, much like they had to be in Bazant's freefall through the first story of the drop. No wonder this anonymous Internet phenom (who calls himself TFK) is a defender of Zdenek Bazant. It all makes sense now, as it seems they are the men of the vanishing columns club.

In reality, the top and bottom bent hinge points of a buckled column are what would contact each other. The core columns would have buckled over a one story length and the perimeter would have buckled over a two story height, since they were pulled inward by the core story that collapsed.

There would have had to have been contact in the first story in the core and at the very least by the second story of the fall all of the columns would have been capable of contact. Bazant's analysis is bogus for both one and two story falls and anyone trying to stretch it to three stories before any contact would be made is simply out in left field somewhere.

 

[beachnut]

...
Sorry pal, Bazant's analysis is bogus for both one and two story falls and you trying to stretch it to three stories before any contact would be made is incredible.

Where is your work showing Bazant's model is wrong? You don't have it. You don't understand models, all you do is attack other and claim 911 was an inside job, your realcddeal. You are completing the 11 years of failure with zero evidence to back your claims, so you attack other people.

How does attacking Bazant and NIST support your real CD deal?

 

[Animal]

So here we have an anonymous Internet person (who seems to be a wonder in his own mind) claiming that the columns in the twin towers couldn't contact each other until a new column was available three stories below. The buckling columns seem to have just been whisked away in his analysis, much like they had to be in Bazant's freefall through the first story of the drop. No wonder this anonymous Internet phenom (who calls himself TFK) is a defender of Zdenek Bazant. It all makes sense now, as it seems they are the men of the vanishing columns club.

In reality, the top and bottom bent hinge points of a buckled column are what would contact each other. The core columns would have buckled over a one story length and the perimeter would have buckled over a two story height, since they were pulled inward by the core story that collapsed.

There would have had to have been contact in the first story in the core and at the very least by the second story of the fall all of the columns would have been capable of contact. Bazant's analysis is bogus for both one and two story falls and anyone trying to stretch it to three stories before any contact would be made is simply out in left field somewhere.

And the incompetence continues

 

[tsig]

So here we have an anonymous Internet person (who seems to be a wonder in his own mind) claiming that the columns in the twin towers couldn't contact each other until a new column was available three stories below. The buckling columns seem to have just been whisked away in his analysis, much like they had to be in Bazant's freefall through the first story of the drop. No wonder this anonymous Internet phenom (who calls himself TFK) is a defender of Zdenek Bazant. It all makes sense now, as it seems they are the men of the vanishing columns club.

In reality, the top and bottom bent hinge points of a buckled column are what would contact each other. The core columns would have buckled over a one story length and the perimeter would have buckled over a two story height, since they were pulled inward by the core story that collapsed.

There would have had to have been contact in the first story in the core and at the very least by the second story of the fall all of the columns would have been capable of contact. Bazant's analysis is bogus for both one and two story falls and anyone trying to stretch it to three stories before any contact would be made is simply out in left field somewhere.

Are you saying that buckled columns could still support a load?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Are you saying that buckled columns could still support a load?

Columns like those used in the twin towers have a relatively high minimum resistance during buckling, and it is asymptotic and never goes to zero. Take a look at figures 5d and e in the Bazant and Zhou paper . They show it right there that the columns could nearly support the load while buckling. The resistance is still about 25 to 30% of what an intact column was and the intact column was only handling about 20 to 33% of its capacity. The acceleration during buckling of those columns should have been quite low.

 

[NoahFence]

Just stop. Get a new hobby.

 

[ozeco41]

...How does attacking Bazant and NIST support your real CD deal?

It doesn't as you have correctly identified on many occasions. It is also something that I have explained in precise detail several times - the most recent being this in this thread at post 683:

...If you show that Bazant was wrong then it shows that Bazant was wrong with an abstract model. It has zero effect on real world....
This is exactly the same error as you seem to be pursuing with 'Prove NIST wrong on "Girder Walkoff" '. If NIST was wrong on that one then NIST was wrong. Wrong on an explanation given years after the event. Right or wrong it cannot change the facts of history. And, for that reason, it gives no support to any desire you have to prove 'artificially instigated and propagated collapse'...

And the incompetence continues

...it sure does but I haven't reached either the end of my patience at explaining OR the limit of my tolerance of personal the rudeness and insult routinely sent my way whenever I post accurate and precisely defined reasoning which Tony either cannot or chooses not to respond to.

So here goes once again :

So here we have an anonymous Internet person (who seems to be a wonder in his own mind) claiming that the columns in the twin towers couldn't contact each other until a new column was available three stories below...

Tony your resort to ad hom is a trademark flag of the occasions when you are unable or unwilling to continue reasoned debate. The measure of 'is the statement correct' is - believe it or not - "Is the statement correct?" AND it has nothing to do with the identity of the person making the statement whether that person published their name or chooses to partially cloud it behind a forum user-name. ALSO the posting record of the two persons relevant to your snide slur shows that the (partially) anonymous poster 'tfk' is usually, maybe always, correct in his claims whilst the named poster Tony Szamboti is invariably wrong. So 'anonymity' is not relevant as a criterion of correctness; AND

...The buckling columns seem to have just been whisked away in his analysis, much like they had to be in Bazant's freefall through the first story of the drop....

...the irony here is that one of the most published examples of that alleged error was in a paper entitled 'The Missing Jolt'. Which, BTW, was authored by two named persons, no anonymity to hide the gross errors behind AND openly publishing their names did not protect them from error.

...No wonder this anonymous Internet phenom (who calls himself TFK) is a defender of Zdenek Bazant. It all makes sense now, as it seems they are the men of the vanishing columns club....

At least two false global claims in those two sentences. I suggest that the truth is that, like me, tfk will defend Bazant where Bazant is correct. Tony's 'false global claim' carries the ridiculous suggestions that (a) We should disagree with Bazant when he is right; AND (b) We do agree with Bazant when he is wrong.

The remainder of Tony's post is so overloaded with multiple aspects of woo as to make detailed correction too problematic. Let me pick what is IMO the most important point. Tony's persistence in mixing yup bits of Bazant abstraction with observations from the real world:

In reality,....

STOP THERE. Tony acknowledges that he is about to discuss 'reality'. If only he can maintain that undertaking and not go back to mixing up bits of Bazant abstraction with real world observations. The history of Tony's posting on this topic shows that he persistently makes gross errors because he confuses the two vastly different settings viz: 1) Real world WTC 9/11; AND 2) The Bazant abstract modelling.

I will simply highlight (some of) the 'first order' errors of fact or logic without discussing them in detail:

... the top and bottom bent hinge points of a buckled column are what¹ would contact each other^2,3. The core columns would have buckled⁴ over a one story length⁵ and the perimeter would have buckled⁶ over a two story height⁷, since they were pulled inward^{8, 9} by the core story¹⁰ that collapsed.

There would have had to have been contact¹¹ in the first story in the core¹² and at the very least by the second story¹³ of the fall¹⁴ all¹⁵ of the columns would have been capable of contact¹⁶. Bazant's analysis¹⁷ is bogus for both one and two story falls¹⁸ and anyone trying to stretch it to three stories¹⁹ before any contact would be made is simply out in left field ²⁰somewhere.

So 20 obvious errors in a couple of short paragraphs. And I have limited my identification to 'first order' errors only.

Members can have fun deciding what errors I have seen and probably identifying a few more. No prizes.

The three underpinning issues I have repeatedly identified for Tony being:
1) He has no model of collapse initiation - so all his bits of claims have no foundation of a coherent model;
2) Many of his claims rest on errors of sequence. Mostly in the form of claiming that some 'end for end contact' is in the future when his starting point is after the opportunity of contact had already been passed. (Details previously posted - I can find the links if anyone is interested.) AND
3) The 'BIG ONE' - he keeps mixing up Bazant abstractions, context and assumptions with the events which actually happened in the real world. That error is equivalent to taking measurements off a donkey to prove the skin thickness of oranges. And he keeps repeating it despite being shown why it is wrong. (As if anyone should need to be shown...but....)

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It doesn't as you have correctly identified on many occasions. It is also something that I have explained in precise detail several times - the most recent being this in this thread at post 683:

...it sure does but I haven't reached either the end of my patience at explaining OR the limit of my tolerance of personal the rudeness and insult routinely sent my way whenever I post accurate and precisely defined reasoning which Tony either cannot or chooses not to respond to.

So here goes once again :
Tony your resort to ad hom is a trademark flag of the occasions when you are unable or unwilling to continue reasoned debate. The measure of 'is the statement correct' is - believe it or not - "Is the statement correct?" AND it has nothing to do with the identity of the person making the statement whether that person published their name or chooses to partially cloud it behind a forum user-name. ALSO the posting record of the two persons relevant to your snide slur shows that the (partially) anonymous poster 'tfk' is usually, maybe always, correct in his claims whilst the named poster Tony Szamboti is invariably wrong. So 'anonymity' is not relevant as a criterion of correctness; AND
...the irony here is that one of the most published examples of that alleged error was in a paper entitled 'The Missing Jolt'. Which, BTW, was authored by two named persons, no anonymity to hide the gross errors behind AND openly publishing their names did not protect them from error.
At least two false global claims in those two sentences. I suggest that the truth is that, like me, tfk will defend Bazant where Bazant is correct. Tony's 'false global claim' carries the ridiculous suggestions that (a) We should disagree with Bazant when he is right; AND (b) We do agree with Bazant when he is wrong.

The remainder of Tony's post is so overloaded with multiple aspects of woo as to make detailed correction too problematic. Let me pick what is IMO the most important point. Tony's persistence in mixing yup bits of Bazant abstraction with observations from the real world:
STOP THERE. Tony acknowledges that he is about to discuss 'reality'. If only he can maintain that undertaking and not go back to mixing up bits of Bazant abstraction with real world observations. The history of Tony's posting on this topic shows that he persistently makes gross errors because he confuses the two vastly different settings viz: 1) Real world WTC 9/11; AND 2) The Bazant abstract modelling.

I will simply highlight (some of) the 'first order' errors of fact or logic without discussing them in detail:

So 20 obvious errors in a couple of short paragraphs. And I have limited my identification to 'first order' errors only.

Members can have fun deciding what errors I have seen and probably identifying a few more. No prizes.

The three underpinning issues I have repeatedly identified for Tony being:
1) He has no model of collapse initiation - so all his bits of claims have no foundation of a coherent model;
2) Many of his claims rest on errors of sequence. Mostly in the form of claiming that some 'end for end contact' is in the future when his starting point is after the opportunity of contact had already been passed. (Details previously posted - I can find the links if anyone is interested.) AND
3) The 'BIG ONE' - he keeps mixing up Bazant abstractions, context and assumptions with the events which actually happened in the real world. That error is equivalent to taking measurements off a donkey to prove the skin thickness of oranges. And he keeps repeating it despite being shown why it is wrong. (As if anyone should need to be shown...but....)

Haven't you ever taken notice of the ad hominems used by TFK? You seem to be a little biased in your opinions and it would certainly appear your use of the made up word "woo" is ad hominem.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Columns like those used in the twin towers have a relatively high minimum resistance during buckling, and it is asymptotic and never goes to zero.

If it's buckling though, the situation has changed. Either:

1- load has increased due to plane impact damage
2- load capacity has decreased due to heat
3- load has increased due to creep and load transfer
4- all above combined.....

Take a look at figures 5d and e in the Bazant and Zhou paper . They show it right there that the columns could nearly support the load while buckling.

And again, as stated in the paper, this is for an idealized situation where the steel has unlimited ductility. it doesn't.

The resistance is still about 25 to 30% of what an intact column was

Yes, the Mawell line.

and the intact column was only handling about 20 to 33% of its capacity.

This capacity estimate is before factoring in the 3 things mentioned above.

What is it after you do that?

The acceleration during buckling of those columns should have been quite low.

Numbers?

 

[ozeco41]

Haven't you ever taken notice of the ad hominems used by TFK?...

The 'cut throat defence' of 'he did it first' is something the naughty kids practice on the school buses I drive as my retirement hobby job. They always overlook that it is no defence AND is an admission. However your use of it here is not relevant Tony - other than to expose your habit of nit picking irrelevancies as a means of avoiding substantive points of argument.

...You seem to be a little biased in your opinions...

Ah the irony.

...and it would certainly appear your use of the made up word "woo" is ad hominem.

Appear to who? Any reasonable person could easily see it as a use of emotive language. BUT it is clear that the object of the description is the material you posted. Describing the posted material as 'woo' is therefore emotive but cannot be ad - hom. Which is precisely why I used the word the way that I did. Try this additional example: >> "The lack of reasoned logic in the material of your response is obvious." <<<That is the same logic construct - emotive words BUT the object is the content of a post therefore not 'ad hom' which, as it says, it would be if you personally were the object of the comment. Do you see the point? Ad hom - abbreviated from 'argumentum ad hominem' means "to the man" (or "at the person") - where 'man' predates current gender political sensitivities. The use was not ad hom because it was directed at the material you posted, not at you personally. I try to avoid using personal attack despite the somewhat generous environment which allows such conduct on this forum.

BTW a bonus point. That last lot of explanation is also 'meta-process' - it discusses the process of argument rather than the topic. It is 'argument about how to argue'.

Feel free to address the substantive points I make in my posts.

 

[tfk]

So here we have an anonymous Internet person ...

Ahhh, Tony's haven whenever he cannot answer direct questions...

(who seems to be a wonder in his own mind) …

I am pretty good, Tony. Proven by my career achievements, and known in my field.

Regardless of the above, it doesn't take any more than "barely functional" to point out the absurd errors of the Known Internet person, Tony Szamboti, who has asserted:

1. a stationary item has accelerated to near light speed over 32 years of non-motion.
To which the Known Internet Person, Tony Szamboti, replied: "[crickets]"

2. that dividing by the width of a weld is the same as multiplying times the length.
Szamboti response: "[crickets]"

3. no significant damage to any structural members (other than impacted wall) of the WTC towers due to the plane impacts,

4. factors of safety of structural members of the towers are the same after the plane impacts as they were before the plane impacts.

Plus 100s of other blatant errors, which you make on a regular basis, and then simply ignore corrections. Only to repeat the blatant errors again.

claiming that the columns in the twin towers couldn't contact each other until a new column was available three stories below.

You're memory is flawed, Tony.

It is you who, up until about 4 months ago, explicitly stated that the columns would not only probably, but were virtually certain to, contact each other END TO END.

But now you're backing away into oblique contact, and partial contact & kneeling contact…

… which is going to fall on its face just as quickly as "end to end contact".

Let's start with the external columns, since we can compare your sketch to video images. You know, a reality check.

I invite you to provide sketches of what you think really happened when the column experienced a 1-story buckling.

These don't have to be engineering drawings, but please show components in with 3D extents. That is, I ain't interested in thin-wall, square tubes drawn as lines. Show creases where you think that they'll happen. Show fractured components where you think they'll fracture.

Be sure to include: (Remember, we dealing in reality, not modeling here.)

The assembly just before it fails: i.e., the column above and below the buckling column, along with the spandrel plates, a short stub of the trusses & concrete floor & all hardware,

The assembly after about 1/2 story of descent.

The assembly when (whatever) contacts (whatever) after 1 story of descent.

Please identify what component you believe fails & how.

Then we'll look for any evidence of the external column on either of the towers actually undergoing this sort of 1 story buckling. (Big head's up, Tony. We won't find any.)

I advocate buckling in column units (i.e., 3 or 6 story). We'll see if we see any indication of that sort of buckling. (Big hint, Tony. Yup, we'll find lots of these.)

Then we'll look at how much load we each believe that the contacting surfaces can transmit around the 90° creased, fractured sharp bend to the stub ends of the columns.

(Big hint, Tony. Even if this failure mode were possible, which it was not, even if these mangled component by some miracle managed to contact each other, which they could not, then the loads that could be transmitted from the contact point thru the mangled stub ends to the columns above & below is indistinguishable from zero.)

After you show me your sketch, I'll show you mine.

This is not the first time i've asked Tony for these sketches.

Tony's response that time: "… crickets …"

I'd like to make a big prediction here, folks.

Tony answer will be the same this time.

The buckling columns seem to have just been whisked away in his analysis, much like they had to be in Bazant's freefall through the first story of the drop.

They have to be "whisked away" only in your incompetent little imagination.

In order to "not contact each other" they simply have to, uh, "not contact each other." Ever heard the expression "a miss is as good as a mile"?

Or in Tony Szamboti-land, do two columns passing near to each other imply enough work flowing thru the (nonexistent) contact interface to bring a couple hundred thousand tons of weight to a halt??

No wonder this anonymous Internet phenom (who calls himself TFK) is a defender of Zdenek Bazant. It all makes sense now, as it seems they are the men of the vanishing columns club.

Bazant needs no defense from me.

I've looked at & posted his resume. He is demonstrably one of the most accomplished engineers who have ever lived.

Tony Szamboti, on the other hand … not so much.

In reality, the top and bottom bent hinge points of a buckled column are what would contact each other. The core columns would have buckled over a one story length and the perimeter would have buckled over a two story height, since they were pulled inward by the core story that collapsed.

There would have had to have been contact in the first story in the core and at the very least by the second story of the fall all of the columns would have been capable of contact.

Ahhh, I see.

Draw what you claim, please.

Are you also claiming that the core collapsed (was severed) slowly over the course of 20 - 30 minutes???

Orly?

Bazant's analysis is bogus for both one and two story falls

Except that Bazant doesn't claim that there will be contact at either 1 or 2 stories. He ain't that dumb.

… and anyone trying to stretch it to three stories before any contact would be made is simply out in left field somewhere.

Ahhh, so close, Tony.
But no cigar.

The real cd deal is that "anyone trying to suggest any meaningful contact for 1, 2, 3 or any number of stories is out in LaLa Land."

So, who around here is dumb enough to suggest that any significant number of columns could make any significant impulse generating contact?

Oh yeah. That would be you, Tony.

 

[tfk]

Columns like those used in the twin towers have a relatively high minimum resistance during buckling, and it is asymptotic and never goes to zero. Take a look at figures 5d and e in the Bazant and Zhou paper . They show it right there that the columns could nearly support the load while buckling. The resistance is still about 25 to 30% of what an intact column was and the intact column was only handling about 20 to 33% of its capacity. The acceleration during buckling of those columns should have been quite low.

Absolutely, laughably ridiculous.

Coming from any one, much less an alleged mechanical engineer...

Pssst, Tony, those are "generic curves" taken from generic columns mounted into an Instron type compression tester. They are not the specific curves drawn for any specific column in the towers, joined in the various ways that external & core columns are spliced.

Or do you think that the curves for thin wall box columns (external wall) will be the same as for a different sized thick wall box columns (core box columns) and the same as for I beams (core columns) bent in either the I or the H direction??

Pssst, Tony, the load carrying capacity goes to EXACTLY zero if ANY ONE of the connections in a column stack from the ground to the crush floor fails.

The load carrying capacity goes to EXACTLY zero if any column in the stack forms a sharp crease at any point along its length. Because, at that point, even ductile carbon steel, when formed into a 14" or larger box column or similar sized I beam, is virtually certain to fracture.

Cripes, the litany of asinine statements...