reply to post by Joey Canoli
sorry m8 read the nist report...and all three Bazant reports....the idea is global failure m8....I showed that there was not global failure...just as
the NIST report states....by the thermals from the NIST papers.....but you my friend cannot seem to read what is being stated....so i will simplify
for you.....the Nist reports shows that there was not global thermals of high emough temps to weaken the steel to provide global failure throughout
the floors...not just in one building but in both structures....also in building 7......therefore...how can one ever believe the theory that bazant
puts forward saying there was global failure which allowed complete removal of one ENTIRE floor....remembering it would have to be the case for all
three steel structures.....but you would believe anything i can see.
then in another thread you show a gif of an elastic collision of two objects on wheels and try to say we do not understand the physics involved.....I
think you need some serious assistance in your arguments.....the energy transfers and continue to move in along the same vector as the
collision......and i bet you never even bother to look at the videos to gain some kind of understanding did you.......NOPE had thought not.
Now a BS statement by you....less energy consumed to go straight down........OMG....you are approaching idiocy in that statement....so going down
through the core requires less energy .....it requies a huge amount of energy
Energy Summary:
The energy balance can be summarised as
Energy available;
Kinetic energy 2105MJ
Potential energy Additional downward movement 95MJ
Compression of impacting section 32MJ
Compression of impacted section 24MJ
Total Energy available 2256MJ
Energy required;
Momentum losses 1389MJ
Plastic strain energy in lower impacted storey 244MJ
Plastic strain energy in upper impacted storey 215MJ
Elastic strain energy in lower storeys 64MJ
Elastic strain energy in upper storeys 126MJ
Pulverisation of concrete on impacting floor 304MJ
Pulverisation of concrete on impacted floor 304MJ
Total Energy required 2646MJ
Minimum Energy Deficit -390MJ
as you might be able to understand .....there was an energy deficit using Bazants own numbers here.....but if you bothered to check the source in the
last post you might have found this out......
So stop your patronizing crud with me Joey...because i do understand what i am talking about......and it shows in your own words you have not a
clue.....you have stumbled over and over on what you present...and you try to cover your ignorance with condescending patronizing remarks.....YOU
Fail.
the the Ke would be transfered as the collapse progresses......you cannot take the smaller mass of the upper block and destroy the larger mass of the
lower block.....Simple FACT.
now we are talking about the core...there was diagonal bracing up the entire core structure...not just on the mechanical floors.....so you had better
go look again at the elevation plans for the towers...it might help you to stop spreading more lies...
now we are not talking about the entire floor getting hot in Bazants case....try to listen if you could please....we are talking about for Bazants
model to work.....the Entire floor would have to basically lost all support...to reach his 2.105Gj
If we assume that the upper section comprising 16 storeys falls under a full gravitational
acceleration through a height of one (removed) storey, a distance of 3.7 metres we can calculate
that its velocity upon impact will be 8.52 metres per second and have a kinetic energy due to its
mass and velocity of 2.105 GJ. (Using the figure of 58000 tonnes as detailed in the report by
Bazant & Zhou.[1]) In reality there would be some losses of energy due to residual strength
within the failing columns of the removed section, but these are ignored for the purposes of this
analysis.
you see his numbers neglect the fact that a good percentage of the columns would be intact.....that is why i used the NIST report which works against
Bazants own reasoning.....but you did not observe what i was stating did you?...Typical.
it is about loss of energy...the transfer of energy into the lower structure and the transfer of energy used in the destruction of the upper block as
well as the lower but.....I am not talking about the simple physics on a horizontal plain which you are referring too......but you like to use in a
GIF showing an elastic collision on your HORIZONTAL plain.....strange that is make up your mind shall you.
so maybe when your own ignorance stops showing through and you learn not to be so patronizing you might be able to sound intelligent enough to put
valid points across...... you did not counter anything i presented with fact...you only ranted.
