Moderated Continuation - Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[BasqueArch]

and that's why a one-way crush down is not possible! when any structural element fails and produces a displacement/new contact there is elastic compression, and this goes on and on and on and on ... And the destruction is very soon arrested.

Explosiveless Hydraulic-Demolished French Building's Part C, Unaware Of Heiwa's Axiom, One-Way Crushes Down Part A. Heiwa Refuses To Admit Axiom Wrong Reality Right, Indignantly Replies - Are You Going To Believe Me Or Your Lying Eyes. Szamboti Applauds Heiwa's Obstinance, Sacrifices Truth For Misguided Loyalty.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x17lks_demolition-tour-abc-balzac-vitry_news​

 

[twinstead]

I'm concerned that these truthers somehow think that with the huge amount of material out there confirming the general findings of the NIST report, we are still supposed to believe some dudes on an internet forum telling us they're all wrong.

Heiwa and company, it's not you against a forum and its mostly anonymous members, it's you against the consensus of the world's experts. You can spin it all you want, claim that those who haven't expressly come out against you just may think you're right, whatever, but this means A LOT to this layman, and I'll bet to most of the others on this forum who can't contribute technically to the discussion.

 

[hokie]

I've watched Tony on other forums. He begins with a claim. Then he demands that you demonstrate some math. Then after ridiculous time spent demanding he finally reveals some math. After all the effort to get the calculations from him you see a simplistic model applied inappropriately.

Here we are again.

 

[tfk]

Now that Bazant's upper 'rigid block' of WTC1 has been proven to have disintegrated PRIOR tp contact with the lower 90% of the building ...

Nobody has "proven" that the upper-block disintegrated prior to contact with THE FLOOR IMMEDIATELY BELOW...

Your muddle-headed guru continues to make a complete fool of himself ... The fool you worship cannot supply a single calculation supporting his madness. He has been torn to shreds by real engineers...

Heiwa has been beaten as badly and exposed as thoroughly as such hopeless, unteachable idiots ... Are you so blinded by your hate-based ideology that you can't see it?

.
FW,

Just to be clear on this one, FW. Bill doesn't think that Heiwa has falsified Bazant's analysis. It's MUCH more amusing than that.

Bill thinks that BILL has falsified Bazant's analysis.

Quel droll.
___

Tony Sz.,

Would you do Bill a favor. Since he seems incapable of processing any input from any of us, would you inform him what it means to graduate first in your class, to receive an engineering PhD. And a Postgrad degree in Theoretical Physics. To become a registered Professional Engineer. To teach engineering at a first rate engineering program like Northwestern for 40+ years. And to hold an endowed chair there for 19. To turn out 50 PhDs. To be invited to be a visiting professor at schools like Cal Tech, Stanford & MIT. To be awarded honorary doctorates from six different universities.

To be a staff consultant at a major US Research Lab (like Argonne) for 20 years.To receive a "Lifetime Achievement Award" from the ASCE (Ill). To have received over 20 engineering medals and awards, including the T von Karman Medal. to have published over 480 peer reviewed papers, 50 review papers, 200 proceedings papers, 2 university texts, 6 authored and 20 edited books.

Could you explain what it means to be elected to the National Academy of Engineering. And to the National Academy of Science.

Could you explain to Bill what this level of professional achievement means to an engineer. When you're done, you might try explaining it to Heiwa. An then, perhaps, to yourself.

If you have any questions, you might check here: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/docs/Bazant/resume.pdf
___

Bill. A thought...

The floors were also not capable of being cantilevered off of the core either.

'' The floors were also not capable of being cantilevered off of the core either.''
What do you mean by this Tony ?

Bill, the floors outside of the core needed to be supported at both ends...

Suppose a floor connection had been sheared at the perimeter column only ... would the remaining floor skeleton have hung off the core column connection ?

No, the connections were not intended for cantilever loads, they were only intended for vertical shear.

Do you mean that the metal of the connectors welded to the columns and the flanges of the floors was not ductile and would not bend.

If you're going to PUBLICLY claim to have "dismantled" Bazant's analysis, it'd be REALLY SWELL if you first learned what words like "cantilever", "ductile" and "shear" mean. "Stress" & "Strain" might prove valuable too.

Just a suggestion. Not one that I expect you to follow.

Tom

 

[alienentity]

TFK wrote

Could you explain to Bill what this level of professional achievement means to an engineer. When you're done, you might try explaining it to Heiwa. An then, perhaps, to yourself.

So what about his achievements? He's working for the NWO! (reaction inside average truther mind)

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It's an enormous error, as I can rather trivially show with a reductio ad absurdam. The calculation does not, at any point, consider the cross-sectional area of the columns; the only numbers entered are for the length and breadth of the entire assembly. Therefore, if the assembly were made from four solid square columns each of 1mm x 1mm section at the corners of a 137 by 84 foot rectangle, according to Tony's argument this assembly (with sufficient cross-bracing) would be able to support a load of 37 billion pounds. Since this is utterly absurd, it follows that it is an absurd assumption that a rectangular array of columns has the same load-bearing capacity as a rectangular column of the same outside dimensions as the array.


Dave

Dave, this was obviously a rough back of the envelope calculation to show just why the core was self-supporting. I did not say it could support 37 billion pounds, just that that size column would need that kind of a load to buckle, meaning it would not. It would have failed by compressive rupture first and is out of the realm of buckling.

Here is a calculation for a 137 foot x 87 foot rectangular column x 1440 foot high with just 12 inch walls. The calculation is converted to inches with a 1,644 inch x 1,044 inch rectangular column x 17,280 inch high.

The moment of inertia I = 1/2bh^3. The hollow area MOI about the least radius of gyration is subtracted from that of the exterior dimensions to find the MOI of the hollow section with 12 inch walls and it is 12.628 x 10^9 in.^4.

The critical buckling load equation is F = (Pi^2 x E x I)/(K x L)^2

Since it is fixed at one end and free at the other K = 2.0. The modulus of elasticity is 29 x 10^6 psi for steel. In this case F = 3.02 billion pounds (which is at least 3 times and possibly 5 times the entire weight of a tower). This simply means it is out of the range of buckling, since it would obviously fail by compressive rupture first.

You can cut lots of holes in the side of this 12 inch thick wall column as long as all slenderness ratios are such that local buckling will not occur, which is what the X-Y lattice structure of the core did. It limited buckling of the columns to near their compressive yield stress by keeping their slenderness ratios low. Since the columns would not yield with less than 3 times the load on them the core was self-supporting.

The overall central core was a lattice structured self-supporting column.

For AW Smith, an overturn moment on this section due to a 40 mph wind would not come anywhere near toppling it. I used the 12 inch walls to find the stress using the equation stress = MC/I, where M = moment, and C = distance to neutral axis. I also calculated the shear. The resultant stress was only 407 psi. Now we could use the actual column cross sections and welds, which maintained 60% of the strength of the column, and the stress would still be well within the limits of the welds. Let's not forget that wind pressure is a function of velocity squared and the exterior walls were designed to handle 98 mph routinely for a larger area with a reserve. The exterior would have handled 9 times what I am discussing here for a theoretical wind load on the core.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You're wrong Tony. I am. I've read the output of quite a few engineers, who've explained the physics of building collapse, and am quite capable of recognizing that you're denying basic physics, for your own political and quite disingenuous reasons.

By the way, I notice you can't even decide whether I'm disgusted with you personally or also with your intellectual dishonesty. In this case, I'm decidedly against your pretense of being an engineer to pass off the inane comment you did - remember what it was?

I'll remind you: You are denying that the accelerating and increasing mass could crush the remaining building. This is idiocy.

alienentity, you impress me as nothing more than a sophist so I would hope you don't think that I take your opinions very seriously.

 

[alienentity]

alienentity, you impress me as nothing more than a sophist so I would hope you don't think that I take your opinions very seriously.

Likewise, you impress me as nothing more than a disingenuous truther so I would hope you don't think that I take your opinions very seriously.

 

[FineWine]

.
FW,

Just to be clear on this one, FW. Bill doesn't think that Heiwa has falsified Bazant's analysis. It's MUCH more amusing than that.

Bill thinks that BILL has falsified Bazant's analysis.

Quel droll.

Tom

Good lord, I think you're right. My only quibble is that the notion of Heiwa refuting Bazant is not much less ridiculous than Bill refuting Bazant. A contest of flea vs. elephant is not all that different from toad vs. elephant.

 

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by dtugg
I take it that you tested this with lemons, pizza boxes, and sponges. I mean, without that, how can one be sure?

PS: How is it going with that article that you claimed has a 100% chance of getting published?

HEIWA

...Don't worry! One-way crush down is not possible.

The article was sent to ASCE Journal of Mechanical Engineering on 3 February 2009 and is still under peer review, I am told. Editor Ross Corotis has informed he will publish it.

12th April 2009, 03:16 AM #4
UNLoVedRebel
Graduate Poster
"Editor Ross Corotis has informed he will publish it. "

In the Journal of Psychiatric Research?

Madoff Took My Only Copy Heiwa Claims.​

 

[FineWine]

alienentity, you impress me as nothing more than a sophist so I would hope you don't think that I take your opinions very seriously.

But denying that the increasing mass and acceleration of the collapsing floors didn't bring down the building is idiocy.

 

[Baylor]

Is heiwa trying to outdo christophera's "still no explanation for freefall" thread as the dumbest thread ever?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Likewise, you impress me as nothing more than a disingenuous truther so I would hope you don't think that I take your opinions very seriously.

The difference is I can back up what I say. Something I do not see you do.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

But denying that the increasing mass and acceleration of the collapsing floors didn't bring down the building is idiocy.

Since you think it is idiotic to believe otherwise, you should at least explain how loose material would cause the complete collapse of the towers. Please add some math to at least provide some basis.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Since you think it is idiotic to believe otherwise, you should at least explain how loose material would cause the complete collapse of the towers.

It's not just "loose material"
It's thousands of tons on material crashing down on individual structural elements. A building is boiled down to an assembly of individual pieces, in which localized loading conditions can cause failure of part of the assembly at any given time. In other words, if individual pieces of the assembly cannot adequately arrest the mass then it continue, regardless if as you contend in your missing jolt paper that the "lower section carried these loads with no problems for 30 years". It's not appropriate to treat them as if they're monolithic in any sense of the word. You of all people, having just performed a set of calculations that rest beyond my qualifications to adequately critique should know this better than anyone.

 

[BasqueArch]

Heiwa Where's That Paper​

Madoff Took My Only Copy Heiwa Claims.​

HEIWA
...Don't worry! One-way crush down is not possible.

The article was sent to ASCE Journal of Mechanical Engineering on 3 February 2009 and is still under peer review, I am told. Editor Ross Corotis has informed he will publish it.

___________________________________________________________

Zdenek Bazant to Receive Timoshenko Medal​

http://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/545​

Zdeněk P. Bažant, McCormick Institute Professor and Walter P. Murphy Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Northwestern University, will be awarded the prestigious Timoshenko Medal by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

Bažant discovered the non-statistical (energetic) size effect on the strength structures consisting of brittle heterogeneous materials such as concrete, fiber composites, tough ceramics, rock, sea ice, rigid foams, and many materials on approach to nano-scale. He formulated a simple size effect law used for structural design and material characterization. He is known as a world leader in the research on scaling in solid mechanics.

The Timoshenko Medal was established in 1957 and is conferred in recognition of distinguished contributions to the field of theoretical mechanics. Instituted by the Applied Mechanics Division, it honors Stephen P. Timoshenko, world-renowned authority in the field, and it commemorates his contributions as author and teacher.

Bažant has already been elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Austrian Academy of Sciences, the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Rome), the Spanish Royal Academy of Engineering, the Engineering Academy of Czech Republic, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, and the Academia di Scienze e Lettere (Milan). He has also received six honorary doctorates from universities in Boulder, Prague, Karlsruhe, Milan, Lyon, and Vienna.

Bažant will receive the medal at the dinner of the Applied Mechanics Division on Nov. 17.​

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It's not just "loose material"
It's thousands of tons on material crashing down on individual structural elements. A building is boiled down to an assembly of individual pieces, in which localized loading conditions can cause failure of part of the assembly at any given time. In other words, if individual pieces of the assembly cannot adequately arrest the mass then it continue, regardless if as you contend in your missing jolt paper that the "lower section carried these loads with no problems for 30 years". It's not appropriate to treat them as if they're monolithic in any sense of the word. You of all people, having just performed a set of calculations that rest beyond my qualifications to adequately critique should know this better than anyone.

Grizzly, you should look into what mass participation, stiffness, and transmissibility mean in a shock load.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Where's That Paper​

HEIWA
...Don't worry! One-way crush down is not possible.

The article was sent to ASCE Journal of Mechanical Engineering on 3 February 2009 and is still under peer review, I am told. Editor Ross Corotis has informed he will publish it.
___________________________________________________________

Zdenek Bazant to Receive Timoshenko MedalJune 29, 2009​

http://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/545​

Zdeněk P. Bažant, McCormick Institute Professor and Walter P. Murphy Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Northwestern University, will be awarded the prestigious Timoshenko Medal by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

Bažant discovered the non-statistical (energetic) size effect on the strength structures consisting of brittle heterogeneous materials such as concrete, fiber composites, tough ceramics, rock, sea ice, rigid foams, and many materials on approach to nano-scale. He formulated a simple size effect law used for structural design and material characterization. He is known as a world leader in the research on scaling in solid mechanics.

The Timoshenko Medal was established in 1957 and is conferred in recognition of distinguished contributions to the field of theoretical mechanics. Instituted by the Applied Mechanics Division, it honors Stephen P. Timoshenko, world-renowned authority in the field, and it commemorates his contributions as author and teacher.

Bažant has already been elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Austrian Academy of Sciences, the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Rome), the Spanish Royal Academy of Engineering, the Engineering Academy of Czech Republic, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, and the Academia di Scienze e Lettere (Milan). He has also received six honorary doctorates from universities in Boulder, Prague, Karlsruhe, Milan, Lyon, and Vienna.

Bažant will receive the medal at the dinner of the Applied Mechanics Division on Nov. 17.​

Dr. Bazant does have quite an impressive resume but that doesn't mean he can't err and that something like a covert controlled demolition couldn't fool him as it initially did most of us. His papers do have a couple of major errors. He is off on the axial stiffness of the columns by a factor of 10 to 1 and his energy absorption value is off by a factor of about 6 to 1. He should correct these errors as they have been pointed out to him in the last several months. He hasn't yet.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Dave, this was obviously a rough back of the envelope calculation to show just why the core was self-supporting. I did not say it could support 37 billion pounds, just that that size column would need that kind of a load to buckle, meaning it would not. It would have failed by compressive rupture first and is out of the realm of buckling.

Here is a calculation for a 137 foot x 87 foot rectangular column x 1440 foot high with just 12 inch walls. The calculation is converted to inches with a 1,644 inch x 1,044 inch rectangular column x 17,280 inch high.

The moment of inertia I = 1/2bh^3. The hollow area MOI about the least radius of gyration is subtracted from that of the exterior dimensions to find the MOI of the hollow section with 12 inch walls and it is 12.628 x 10^9 in.^4.

The critical buckling load equation is F = (Pi^2 x E x I)/(K x L)^2

Since it is fixed at one end and free at the other K = 2.0. The modulus of elasticity is 29 x 10^6 psi for steel. In this case F = 3.02 billion pounds (which is at least 3 times and possibly 5 times the entire weight of a tower). This simply means it is out of the range of buckling, since it would obviously fail by compressive rupture first.

You can cut lots of holes in the side of this 12 inch thick wall column as long as all slenderness ratios are such that local buckling will not occur, which is what the X-Y lattice structure of the core did. It limited buckling of the columns to near their compressive yield stress by keeping their slenderness ratios low. Since the columns would not yield with less than 3 times the load on them the core was self-supporting.

The overall central core was a lattice structured self-supporting column.

For AW Smith, an overturn moment on this section due to a 40 mph wind would not come anywhere near toppling it. I used the 12 inch walls to find the stress using the equation stress = MC/I, where M = moment, and C = distance to neutral axis. I also calculated the shear. The resultant stress was only 407 psi. Now we could use the actual column cross sections and welds, which maintained 60% of the strength of the column, and the stress would still be well within the limits of the welds. Let's not forget that wind pressure is a function of velocity squared and the exterior walls were designed to handle 98 mph routinely for a larger area with a reserve. The exterior would have handled 9 times what I am discussing here for a theoretical wind load on the core.

Correcting a typo I just saw after my 120 minute editing time ran out, and a little more explanation.

Moment of inertia for a rectangular column or beam is I = 1/12 x b x h^3, with "b" being the length of the side parallel to the axis of rotation and "h" the length of the side normal to it. In the case above the rotation axis would be parallel to the 137 foot side as the column would buckle easier about the less stiff 87 foot depth.

In the above original post it showed 1/2 in the equation when I meant 1/12.

 

[alienentity]

The difference is I can back up what I say. Something I do not see you do.

That is untrue Tony. I have done so many times, although you may choose to ignore the arguments.

You choose to obfuscate by selectively raising questions about Bazant's paper, for example, yet ignoring mountains of other clear evidence that the cause of the collapses were plane impacts and fires.

I do not choose such folly. I state that planes traveling at hundreds of miles an hour did massive damage to the buildings, anyone can verify this as true. I don't need to provide you a particular math equation, although I could dig one up for you.

Similarly, you cannot refute (in a meaningful, knowledgeable way) the NIST analysis of the fire-induced failures of the tower structures. You simply are not qualified to critique their fire analysis - I've seen what you've written, it's not even worth critiquing you seriously.
So you rely on an idea that a 'jolt' must've been detected, else, explosives must've been used. This is a completely fallacious argument, since explosives are already ruled out by other means. You've invented a linkage out of thin air, without a hint of connection to the real world. Now you're desperate to defend it.

You also rely on an unsophisticated and ridiculous notion that secret explosives (not detected before, during or after the collapses) were planted. We've pointed out many times the incompetence of such speculation, but you don't give a rat's behind for this lack of integrity.

You then further lower yourself into the rabbit hole by trying to implicate your own government in some secret, unknown conspiracy (a product of your imagination), and seek to absolve the actual terrorists.

Yes, you know a lot more about engineering than I do, but it isn't helping you. You cannot simply apply some physics speculation and change reality, no matter how many calculations you use. Go ahead and keep trying.

You've already failed, and someday you'll have to accept it. I don't have the problem of propping up a false and revisionist agenda - that burden is yours.