Debunked: Bazant papers are the only evidence for Twin Towers progressive collsose

Abdullah

Banned
Banned
Architects and Engineers for 9 11 Truth claims:

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/near-free-fall-acceleration

"So little research has been published on why the Twin Towers underwent total collapse that Bažant and Le’s 2011 paper, and Bažant’s three earlier papers on the subject, are the only analysis that exists to support the official explanation of a fire-induced progressive collapse. That analysis has now been indisputably debunked by Szamboti, Johns, Szuladziński, and others."

Yet a brief search of the NIST FAQ reveals another analysis.

https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation/study-faqs/wtc-towers-investigation

"18. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the WTC towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why weren't the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings."

Moreover, here is a 2017 paper by Lalkovski and Starossek.

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/full/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003244

The abstract reads:

"It is generally taken as a given that there is no reasonable design concept that could have prevented the collapse of the Twin Towers, once it was initiated, from progressing all the way down to the ground. This view is rooted in the idea that the force generated during the inevitable impact between what may be called the intact upper section (IUS) and the intact lower section (ILS)—meaning the building sections above and below the initially lost columns, respectively—will exceed by at least one order of magnitude the capacity of the latter. On closer inspection, this turns out to be only partially correct—it is correct with regard to the topmost floor plate of the ILS but not with regard to the columns below this floor plate. This paper shows that if the ILS in the Twin Towers had been topped by a stronger-than-ordinary floor plate allowing the columns below to respond properly, rather than be bypassed, these columns—and with them the ILS—would likely have survived. The paper subsequently proposes a building design concept consisting in the insertion of strengthened floor plates in intervals of 10–20 stories."
 
Last edited:
"...That analysis has now been indisputably debunked by Szamboti, Johns, Szuladziński, and others."
The Authorship was actually Szuladziński, Szamboti, Johns, i.e. Szuladzinski was the lead author. But AE911 probably wanted "their boy" Tony seen in the lead. And the claim "...indisputably debunked..." is false. They probably did demonstrate one error in Bazant & Zhou 2001/2 which had some ironic consequences including NIST was possibly right for the wrong reasons when they claimed "Global collapse was inevitable".

And my long-held bit of pedantic frustration with this incorrect explanation by NIST:
The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings."
It was an "impact load" NOT a "suddenly applied load" - any competent engineer should understand: (a) the definitional error and (b) why it doesn't matter. But I would still prefer if NIST didn't take shortcuts to explanation by misusing engineering concepts and termionology

Then the "new paper" makes suggestions that are obvious:
"..... This paper shows that if the ILS in the Twin Towers had been topped by a stronger-than-ordinary floor plate allowing the columns below to respond properly, rather than be bypassed, these columns—and with them the ILS—would likely have survived. The paper subsequently proposes a building design concept consisting in the insertion of strengthened floor plates in intervals of 10–20 stories."
BUT.....
How do you decide where to locate the "stronger floors" and have sufficient of them to achieve the goal without making the design impractical from both structural and economic grounds?
 
Back
Top