Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[Dave Rogers]

Please show us this no tilt evidence. I think we might be able to prove it fale in 1 post.

He's already done that. He posted two videos, one of which clearly shows a tilt. The other is taken from a direction at right angles to the tilt axis, so the tilt isn't visible. He claimed that, since the one that doesn't show the tilt is filmed from nearer the tower than the one that does, we should pretend the one that does show the tilt isn't reliable evidence, therefore there isn't a tilt. It's one of the most monumentally stupid lines of argument I've ever seen.

Dave

[Childlike Empress]

CIT answers to Legge (http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=738), "Arabesque" (http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=636), Ashley (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/2275993/1/). Here (http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5687) are Brainster's truther buddies discussing Hofmann/Wolsey. Thread now closed after ten pages due to lack of "worth in debating". LOL.

[bill smith]

He's already done that. He posted two videos, one of which clearly shows a tilt. The other is taken from a direction at right angles to the tilt axis, so the tilt isn't visible. He claimed that, since the one that doesn't show the tilt is filmed from nearer the tower than the one that does, we should pretend the one that does show the tilt isn't reliable evidence, therefore there isn't a tilt. It's one of the most monumentally stupid lines of argument I've ever seen.

Dave

He may assume a tilt in one video but I will not accept the assumption of course. I would be happy to review he other video where he claims that he can show a tllt. Then I will shoot it down.

[Dave Rogers]

He may assume a tilt in one video but I will not accept the assumption of course. I would be happy to review he other video where he claims that he can show a tllt. Then I will ahoot it down.

"He" in this case is you. You posted a video that showed a tilt, then said that because it was taken from further away than a different video, you were going to ignore it.

Dave

[bill smith]

"He" in this case is you. You posted a video that showed a tilt, then said that because it was taken from further away than a different video, you were going to ignore it.

Dave

Tut tut...I seem to have developed a bad habit of not reading your posts carefully Dave. I don't recall this? Do you have a link ?

[Dave Rogers]

Tut tut...I seem to have developed a bad habit of not reading your posts carefully Dave. I don't recall this? Do you have a link ?

I tried searching "bill smith" and "video", but for some reason there were too many hits to get anything sensible. Never mind, I remember it as clearly as you remember the Chopper 5 feed being shown live on 9/11, so if there isn't a link that just proves that you've hacked the forum and removed it.

I seem to remember your argument was that if one video shows a rotation, and another doesn't, then there's no rotation. You didn't seem to get much further than that.

Dave

[R.Mackey]

Tony brought his own video to the debate. In this video, the tilt is clearly visible to both Ron and myself. This should be evident in the show when it's assembled.

After the debate sinks to that point, what is one to do? Some Irreducbile Delusions are so strong, they apparently manifest as actual hallucinations.

[alienentity]

Tony brought his own video to the debate. In this video, the tilt is clearly visible to both Ron and myself. This should be evident in the show when it's assembled.

After the debate sinks to that point, what is one to do? Some Irreducbile Delusions are so strong, they apparently manifest as actual hallucinations.

The awesome power of the human mind cuts both ways...;)

[bill smith]

The awesome power of the human mind cuts both ways...;)

So what about your video that shows the tilt then AE ? Let's see that awesome power at work.

[bill smith]

Tony brought his own video to the debate. In this video, the tilt is clearly visible to both Ron and myself. This should be evident in the show when it's assembled.

After the debate sinks to that point, what is one to do? Some Irreducbile Delusions are so strong, they apparently manifest as actual hallucinations.
I hope you mount that one too when available. I want to see the power of hallucination at work too.

[bill smith]

I tried searching "bill smith" and "video", but for some reason there were too many hits to get anything sensible. Never mind, I remember it as clearly as you remember the Chopper 5 feed being shown live on 9/11, so if there isn't a link that just proves that you've hacked the forum and removed it.

I seem to remember your argument was that if one video shows a rotation, and another doesn't, then there's no rotation. You didn't seem to get much further than that.

Dave

if you find the post I think you will find that what I actually said was that the video that is about ten times clearer will carry the day.(or words to that effect)

[newton3376]

Ego investment. His theory is utterly dependent on lack of tilt to produce the 'jolt' that might (note might) result from a pure axial impact, and he's put so much public work into it that accepting his mistake is now itself impossible. If he backed off, then his credentiials would be zilch on both sides of the 9/11 debate. This way he retains a following of a few CT dolts.

I have to agree with this....

I can honestly say that if I was a truther for as long as some of these people have been truthers....it would be tempting to resist admitting I was wrong due to plain and simple pride. I would feel like such a fool afterwards that it might be easier to remain a truther. While I wouldn't actually do that...I could understand the attraction.

Fortunately, for me, I am someone who corrects my position if there is sufficient evidence/argument to show me wrong. Truthers do not take such a position though and I suspect it is largely due to ego as Glenn states above.

[GlennB]

if you find the post I think you will find that what I actually said was that the video that is about ten times clearer will carry the day.(or words to that effect)

1. A clear video of a toppling object, but taken in the plane of the topple. In the 2 secs available before the scene is obscured there is no discernable topple because of the perspective.

2. A less clear video of the very same object, taken at right-angles to the plane of topple, clearly showing the tilt.

"Clarity" is taken to define the actual nature of the event? No. That doesn't work, except in troll-land.

There are perfectly clear stills in the NIST reports showing the tilt of WTC1 beyond any shadow of doubt.

[tsig]

He may assume a tilt in one video but I will not accept the assumption of course. I would be happy to review he other video where he claims that he can show a tllt. Then I will shoot it down.


Very doubtful.

[bill smith]

1. A clear video of a toppling object, but taken in the plane of the topple. In the 2 secs available before the scene is obscured there is no discernable topple because of the perspective.

2. A less clear video of the very same object, taken at right-angles to the plane of topple, clearly showing the tilt.

"Clarity" is taken to define the actual nature of the event? No. That doesn't work, except in troll-land.

There are perfectly clear stills in the NIST reports showing the tilt of WTC1 beyond any shadow of doubt.

No I want to see the rotation of the top portion of WTC1. A still is of no particcular use unless the tilt is very exggerated- which it was not (being non-existent). If you feel you are up to disputing this with video evidence the floor is yours...

[GlennB]

.... A still is of no particcular use unless the tilt is very exggerated- ....

A still photo settles the case if it shows a tilt. End of story.

[Grizzly Bear]

Tony brought his own video to the debate. In this video, the tilt is clearly visible to both Ron and myself. This should be evident in the show when it's assembled.

After the debate sinks to that point, what is one to do? Some Irreducbile Delusions are so strong, they apparently manifest as actual hallucinations.

In one of my discussions with him in July IIRC I brought up a paper by him and Maqueen (sp?) in which he treated all of the columns as if they failed via crushing. If he was saying there was no tilt I'll assume that's a rough equivalent but I'm just curious if he said anything like that directly (where he rules out any notion that the columns in the impact regions buckled). Gravy sent me a history of his posts from a couple years back so I know he's said some weird things before...

[Furcifer]

No tilt? Possibly the most retarded thing yet. Don't let the video evidence get in the way of a stupid theory.

[Tony Szamboti]

In one of my discussions with him in July IIRC I brought up a paper by him and Maqueen (sp?) in which he treated all of the columns as if they failed via crushing. If he was saying there was no tilt I'll assume that's a rough equivalent but I'm just curious if he said anything like that directly (where he rules out any notion that the columns in the impact regions buckled). Gravy sent me a history of his posts from a couple years back so I know he's said some weird things before...

I am simply saying that the tilt does not seem to occur until the upper block has already fallen straight down for several stories. You will have to pardon me if I don't accept the present analysis in the NIST report as it only consists of showing a still that is known to be two to three seconds into the collapse with an assertion then made that the upper section tilted and then dropped.

I also said in the debate that there needs to be a more thorough analysis of just when the tilt in WTC 1's upper block occurred. The devil is in the details and we need to know when it actually occurred. It is not proven that it occurred immediately.

In the Missing Jolt paper we calculate the energy dissipation and resultant velocity loss which should have occurred in the first collision between floors 97 and 99 by finding the elastic and plastic deformation and then buckling of the columns in just those two stories which are on either side of the collision.

[A W Smith]

I am simply saying that the tilt does not seem to occur until the upper block has already fallen several stories. You will have to pardon me if I don't accept the present analysis in the NIST report as it only consists of showing a still that is known to be two to three seconds into the collapse with an assertion then made that the upper section tilted and then dropped.

I also said in the debate that there needs to be a more thorough analysis of just when the tilt in WTC 1's upper block occurred. The devil is in the details.

In the Missing Jolt paper we calculate the energy dissipation and resultant velocity loss which should have occurred in the first collision between floors 97 and 99 by finding the elastic and plastic deformation and then buckling of the columns in just those two stories which are on either side of the collision.

What? toggle the video from 16 seconds to 18 seconds and you can see the top of the tower and antenna tilt to the southeast, this camera is from the west slightly north in Hoboken

ESaIEVxLnK4&


again this time about the same northern latitude but from the east

http://video.baamboo.com/watch/2/video/722802

[alienentity]

I am simply saying that the tilt does not seem to occur until the upper block has already fallen straight down for several stories. You will have to pardon me if I don't accept the present analysis in the NIST report as it only consists of showing a still that is known to be two to three seconds into the collapse with an assertion then made that the upper section tilted and then dropped.

I also said in the debate that there needs to be a more thorough analysis of just when the tilt in WTC 1's upper block occurred. The devil is in the details and we need to know when it actually occurred. It is not proven that it occurred immediately.

In the Missing Jolt paper we calculate the energy dissipation and resultant velocity loss which should have occurred in the first collision between floors 97 and 99 by finding the elastic and plastic deformation and then buckling of the columns in just those two stories which are on either side of the collision.

Tony, I don't get the relevance of this observation; WTC1 didn't accelerate all that fast, I think it was about 64% of freefall, very unlike a verinage, for example, where you have a brief period of freefall and then a distinct aligned impact.
Compare to WTC2, which tilted a lot, damaged by the same general mechanism (plane impact and random fire damage) but with a significantly different result: 2 collapses, 1 with lots of tilt, the other with a bit less.

What makes the tilt so important given those facts? I think you're reading things into it which aren't there, and aren't necessary to explain the collapses.

[alienentity]

Neither collapse behaves like any controlled demolition I've ever seen anyway. If you remove the CD obsession for a moment, there's really nothing going on apart from fire-driven collapse, IMHO.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, I don't get the relevance of this observation; WTC1 didn't accelerate all that fast, I think it was about 64% of freefall, very unlike a verinage, for example, where you have a brief period of freefall and then a distinct aligned impact.
Compare to WTC2, which tilted a lot, damaged by the same general mechanism (plane impact and random fire damage) but with a significantly different result: 2 collapses, 1 with lots of tilt, the other with a bit less.

What makes the tilt so important given those facts? I think you're reading things into it which aren't there, and aren't necessary to explain the collapses.

It is important to know when the tilt occurred in the fall for obvious reasons.

Did the upper block immediately rotate to the south and then begin it's vertical descent or did it descend vertically several stories and then tilt while continuing to descend?

[Reactor drone]

It is important to know when the tilt occurred in the fall for obvious reasons.

Did the upper block immediately rotate to the south and then begin it's vertical descent or did it descend vertically several stories and then tilt while continuing to descend?

I'm not sure the reasons are that obvious.The fact that there was a rotation of the upper section shows one of two things,either the block descended symmetrically and then encountered uneven resistance or it collapsed asymmetrically and then continued on.Either way you aren't getting an even column to column hit so the impact force will be spread out over time,smoothing the deceleration.

[JamesB]

I'm derailing my own thread with this post, which is dumb of me, but I just happened to be alerted to this little coincidence over at Screw Loose Change. Frank Legge at the Journal of 9/11 Studies has some thoughts on the Pentagon, responsive to that little needling attack about Craig Ranke and his truly insane delusions:



He also cites my own calculations on the subject, including this:

Source (http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf)

Understatement of the year, but maybe, micron by micron, some of these people are starting to get it.

I don't have to pay attention to them. Even other Truthers don't buy their crap. Their work is stupendously horrible. Please don't bring it up in my threads ever again.

I e-mailed Legge about his claim that the hijackers targetted the West side of the Pentagon, asking him if he had heard of the Texas Sharpshooter's Fallacy. He refused to discuss the issue because I didn't believe the WTC was a controlled demolition (non sequitur anyone?) Then I discovered that this claim was then quietly removed from one of the next 3 versions of his paper. He is up to 6 now apparently, after undergoing a rigorous peer-review process.

[alienentity]

It is important to know when the tilt occurred in the fall for obvious reasons.

Did the upper block immediately rotate to the south and then begin it's vertical descent or did it descend vertically several stories and then tilt while continuing to descend?

The reasons are not that obvious to me, anyway - apart from wanting to get the details.

[Mancman]

No I want to see the rotation of the top portion of WTC1. A still is of no particcular use unless the tilt is very exggerated- which it was not (being non-existent). If you feel you are up to disputing this with video evidence the floor is yours...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/102524aae6d3f14d4f.jpg

Edited for rule 12.

[Hokulele]

*Thinks about angular momentum for a bit*

What would induce a rotation to the upper block part of the way into the collapse?

[rwguinn]

*Thinks about angular momentum for a bit*

What would induce a rotation to the upper block part of the way into the collapse?
Differential forces at opposite edges of the block--If one edge was hitting column to column and the other was hitting only floor pans--but that would also mean a rotation of some sort had already occurred.
More likely the rockets to bake the collapse happen faster than gravity would allow were mis-aimed...

[Hokulele]

Differential forces at opposite edges of the block--If one edge was hitting column to column and the other was hitting only floor pans--but that would also mean a rotation of some sort had already occurred.


Even if there was a difference in resistence at opposite sides of the block during the collapse, the differential would have to be fairly huge to impart the amount of tilt seen in the time implied here by Tony once the top block began moving, yes? Bah, this will all end in math, I just know it.

*Wanders off to search for my calculator*

More likely the rockets to make the collapse happen faster than gravity would allow were mis-aimed...


Ah, that makes far more sense. :D

[rwguinn]

Even if there was a difference in resistence at opposite sides of the block during the collapse, the differential would have to be fairly huge to impart the amount of tilt seen in the time implied here by Tony once the top block began moving, yes? yup Bah, this will all end in math, I just know it.

*Wanders off to search for my calculator* well, there is a 110 foot moment arm involved, assuming the Center of Gravity is in the middle.
We could get into "See-saw analogies" which render mathematics moot...





Ah, that makes far more sense. :D
Occam's Razor wins again!:jaw-dropp

[Furcifer]

I am simply saying that the tilt does not seem to occur until the upper block has already fallen straight down for several stories.

This is even worse than saying there was no tilt at all. Good luck with that.

[Dave Rogers]

It is important to know when the tilt occurred in the fall for obvious reasons.

Did the upper block immediately rotate to the south and then begin it's vertical descent or did it descend vertically several stories and then tilt while continuing to descend?

I took a couple of quick screen caps from the second video A W Smith referenced, at zero and about 2 seconds. The height of a feature at the top of the tower was 213 pixels above a convenient reference feature on another building in the first, and 212 pixels in the second. Measuring the right hand edge of the building, I found it to be vertical in the first picture, and inclined at about 2º in the second. I don't know the vertical scale exactly, but assuming the darker region upwards from about 77 pixels below the roof starts at about the 93nd storey then a storey appears to be about 4.5 pixels. I would therefore conclude that the upper block acquired a tilt of at least 2º before the highest point had fallen more than about a quarter of a storey. Any component of tilt about an axis perpendicular to the line of sight will not be visible despite bill smith's inability to comprehend the reason why, so this is a minimum value for the tilt at that point in the collapse.

Or, to put it more simply, it tilted significantly before it began to fall.

Dave

[Grizzly Bear]

This is even worse than saying there was no tilt at all. Good luck with that.

I'll reserve my reaction to TS for when I have the chance to see how the show came out. However, with reference to the tilt... it tells me that the structure failed first where the fires or accumulated damage was most severe. This was the case for the south tower... so I'm not sure I see any significance in the tilt. The story it tells is straight forward...

[ImANiceGuy]

I'm confused......isn't the "tilt" part of the Truther's basic collapse premise?

IE. The top section would topple off to the side of the undamaged lower section once collapse began, thus leaving most of both tower's intact.

Could someone please explain how the tables have turned?

[uk_dave]

Could someone please explain how the tables have turned?

Better even than that, for years now 'truthers', in their customary humble way, have been telling us that the collapse of the towers was obviously the work of controlled demolition.

But now they're reduced to arguing over tilts and looking for jolts in grainy youtube videos.

Too funny. 'Truth', the movement that couldn't. :D

[Dave Rogers]

I'm confused......isn't the "tilt" part of the Truther's basic collapse premise?

No. It isn't anyone's premise, it's an observation about the collapse, i.e. something that actually happened. Like everything that actually happened on 9/11, it's accepted as fact by sane people, and alternately accepted, questioned, rejected or misinterpreted - sometimes simultaneously - by those who want to shore up their own pet theory.

IE. The top section would topple off to the side of the undamaged lower section once collapse began, thus leaving most of both tower's intact.

Most of us can understand the difference between a rotation of the upper block, as its centre of gravity falls more or less vertically, and the top falling off like a felled tree. If you think that there is a general acceptance that the latter actually happened on 9/11, then you may be a little more confused than you realise.

Could someone please explain how the tables have turned?

Since the overwhelming majority of the population still recognises that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by Jihadists, you can rest assured that the tables are still the right way up, as they always have been.

Dave

[GlennB]

I'm confused......isn't the "tilt" part of the Truther's basic collapse premise?

IE. The top section would topple off to the side of the undamaged lower section once collapse began, thus leaving most of both tower's intact.

Could someone please explain how the tables have turned?

It's a form of 'confirmation bias' that, in this case, might be better described as 'confirmation creation'.

Tony Szamboti - and about a jillion other people - noticed that the top of WTC1 fell at less than freefall acceleration in the early stages of collapse. Assuming the theoretical Bazantian configuration for the fall/initial impact, he supposed that there would have to be a 'jolt' when top part impacted bottom part square-on.

After some extremely crude measurements he detected no such jolt , and used this to support his joltish CD belief - that explosives were paving the way for the smooth fall of the WTC1 top. However, this staggering insight falls flat if the top section tilted initially because - as was explained to him till the cows came home in the "Missing Jolt" thread - a tilted impact causes the single large theoretical jolt to be smoothed out by thousands of localised small jolts, none of which would cause a measurable jolt at his reference point, the roofline.

Szamboti is now inextricably wedded to this theory (which is his) and has no option but to deny the presence of an initial WTC1 tilt.

In short - he's an imbecile.

[ImANiceGuy]

Thanks Glenn....

Thanks for nothing Dave....

[Tony Szamboti]

It's a form of 'confirmation bias' that, in this case, might be better described as 'confirmation creation'.

Tony Szamboti - and about a jillion other people - noticed that the top of WTC1 fell at less than freefall acceleration in the early stages of collapse. Assuming the theoretical Bazantian configuration for the fall/initial impact, he supposed that there would have to be a 'jolt' when top part impacted bottom part square-on.

After some extremely crude measurements he detected no such jolt , and used this to support his joltish CD belief - that explosives were paving the way for the smooth fall of the WTC1 top. However, this staggering insight falls flat if the top section tilted initially because - as was explained to him till the cows came home in the "Missing Jolt" thread - a tilted impact causes the single large theoretical jolt to be smoothed out by thousands of localised small jolts, none of which would cause a measurable jolt at his reference point, the roofline.

Szamboti is now inextricably wedded to this theory (which is his) and has no option but to deny the presence of an initial WTC1 tilt.

In short - he's an imbecile.

I am not wedded to anything to the point where I would not acknowledge legitimate analysis which matches observation and shows why a tilted impact would obviate the need for a jolt and allow continuous acceleration. Part of that analysis would also be to show the tilt occurred at onset and just what it's magnitude was at different points in the fall and how it affected the impacts. That has not been done as of yet.

The problem is some, like you apparently, just want to handwave that this is what happened. Unfortunately that is not good enough.

Calling people names, who are bringing up legitimate issues, while hiding behind a psuedoname, doesn't help to solve the problem either.

[Mr.Herbert]

Calling people names, who are bringing up legitimate issues, while hiding behind a psuedoname, doesn't help to solve the problem either.

Speaking of names (and forgive me if this is a wee bit off topic) Tony, have you ever considered changing your last name to Shazam? I mean really, that would be so cool. Perhaps have Shazam as a middle name and have your last name Boti. (booty)

Tony Shazam Boti ... now that's hot.

back on topic... how do you think you did on the debate? Did you have access to cardboard boxes?

[rwguinn]

I am not wedded to anything to the point where I would not acknowledge legitimate analysis which matches observation and shows why a tilted impact would obviate the need for a jolt and allow continuous acceleration. Part of that analysis would also be to show the tilt occurred at onset and just what it's magnitude was at different points in the fall and how it affected the impacts. That has not been done as of yet.

The problem is some, like you apparently, just want to handwave that this is what happened. Unfortunately that is not good enough.

Calling people names, who are bringing up legitimate issues, while hiding behind a psuedoname, doesn't help to solve the problem either.
Lots and lots of pictures of it, Tony. It's even mentioned in the report(s)
I'm just speculating, here, but it might have had something to do with massive damage to one side of the building due to a massive *********** airplane hitting it at 500+ MPH.
"There is none so blind/ as he who will not see..."

[A W Smith]

I am not wedded to anything to the point where I would not acknowledge legitimate analysis which matches observation I took a couple of quick screen caps from the second video A W Smith referenced, at zero and about 2 seconds. The height of a feature at the top of the tower was 213 pixels above a convenient reference feature on another building in the first, and 212 pixels in the second. Measuring the right hand edge of the building, I found it to be vertical in the first picture, and inclined at about 2º in the second. I don't know the vertical scale exactly, but assuming the darker region upwards from about 77 pixels below the roof starts at about the 93nd storey then a storey appears to be about 4.5 pixels. I would therefore conclude that the upper block acquired a tilt of at least 2º before the highest point had fallen more than about a quarter of a storey. Any component of tilt about an axis perpendicular to the line of sight will not be visible despite bill smith's inability to comprehend the reason why, so this is a minimum value for the tilt at that point in the collapse.

Or, to put it more simply, it tilted significantly before it began to fall.

Dave and shows why a tilted impact would obviate the need for a jolt and allow continuous acceleration. Part of that analysis would also be to show the tilt occurred at onset http://video.baamboo.com/watch/2/video/722802
and
ESaIEVxLnK4&and just what it's magnitude was at different points in the fall and how it affected the impacts. That has not been done as of yet.

The problem is some, like you apparently, just want to handwave (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5154124&postcount=290) that this is what happened. Unfortunately that is not good enough.

Calling people names, who are bringing up legitimate issues, while hiding behind a psuedoname (realcddeal (http://www.full-styles.com/showpost.php?p=2659973&postcount=162)), doesn't help to solve the problem either.

[BasqueArch]

I am not wedded to anything to the point where I would not acknowledge legitimate analysis which matches observation and shows why a tilted impact would obviate the need for a jolt and allow continuous acceleration. Part of that analysis would also be to show the tilt occurred at onset and just what it's magnitude was at different points in the fall and how it affected the impacts. That has not been done as of yet.


WTC2 videos show upper block columns bending in and smashing directly onto the puny 2.5" (at pan ribs) to 4" thick concrete floor slab below, therefore "no jolt". Upper columns did not hit columns below. Szamboti's "no jolt" unintentionally supports gravity collapse.

Same for WTC1 per Dave Rogers pixel analysis.

Note collapse without explosion, without expulsion of structural items.

http://911stories.googlepages.com/ST1.jpg/ST1-full.jpg
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into-Swift

[Tony Szamboti]

During the debate you brought up the fact that the NIST report does not show a factor of safety of 3.00 to 1 for the core columns or a .333 DCR. However, the NIST does not provide backup data for their claim of what the DCR for the core columns actually was.

The 3.00 to 1 factor of safety for the core columns was calculated using Gregory Urich's mass analysis, the publicly available core column cross sections, an estimate of the perimeter cross sections at a given story based on weight from Urich's analysis, and the fact that the columns on each story were designed to have the same unit stress to preclude differential deflections and floor warpage between the core and perimeter. I estimated the 98th floor perimeter columns to have a 15.6 sq. inch cross sectional area, which would then have an average wall thickness of .289 inches for an approximate 14 inch square column. While it does not give the actual wall thicknesses of the perimeter columns over the height of the towers, the NIST report does say that the wall thickness of the perimeter columns never drops below .250 inches.

You should look at it yourself.

[Mancman]

Tilt clearly seen in these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1bfPaRRK90
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53taT7FSFIk

[funk de fino]

I am not wedded to anything to the point where I would not acknowledge legitimate analysis which matches observation and shows why a tilted impact would obviate the need for a jolt and allow continuous acceleration. Part of that analysis would also be to show the tilt occurred at onset and just what it's magnitude was at different points in the fall and how it affected the impacts. That has not been done as of yet.

The problem is some, like you apparently, just want to handwave that this is what happened. Unfortunately that is not good enough.

Calling people names, who are bringing up legitimate issues, while hiding behind a psuedoname, doesn't help to solve the problem either.

Says the man who makes up lies about an imaginary documentary to back up his CD claims!!

Unless you magically produce this video on the show, your credibility will always be shot. Even a lowly electrical/electronic guy like me proved you had not read the NIST reports fully, and were making false claims based on the premise you had read them.

[alienentity]

Says the man who makes up lies about an imaginary documentary to back up his CD claims!!

Unless you magically produce this video on the show, your credibility will always be shot. Even a lowly electrical/electronic guy like me proved you had not read the NIST reports fully, and were making false claims based on the premise you had read them.

Correction: the History of Business show did feature Larry Silverstein, but nobody has been able to confirm what he really said. You'll have to take Tony 'no tilt' Szamboti's word for it.:D

[Furcifer]

During the debate you brought up the fact that the NIST report does not show a factor of safety of 3.00 to 1 for the core columns or a .333 DCR. However, the NIST does not provide backup data for their claim of what the DCR for the core columns actually was.
The 3.00 to 1 factor of safety for the core columns was calculated using Gregory Urich's mass analysi.

I've got a text book that says that the allowable ASD is 0.6 the yield or 0.5 the ultimate for static loads. (AISC) for an N value of 1.67 and 2.00 respectively. "Applied Strength of Materials. Mott"

Is it possible the core was constructed with a safety factor of 3? Possibly. But inflating it to 3 using Greg's mass calculation seems a stretch. What this amounts to is taking any extraneous mass and saying it went into core steel plate. That's a nice way of saying yur off yur rocker Tony. But I'd like to her one of the engineers weigh in on this.

[BasqueArch]

Note to Ryan
During the debate you brought up the fact that the NIST report does not show a factor of safety of 3.00 to 1 for the core columns or a .333 DCR. However, the NIST does not provide backup data for their claim of what the DCR for the core columns actually was.

The 3.00 to 1 factor of safety for the core columns was calculated using Gregory Urich's mass analysis, the publicly available core column cross sections, an estimate of the perimeter cross sections at a given story based on weight from Urich's analysis, and the fact that the columns on each story were designed to have the same unit stress to preclude differential deflections and floor warpage between the core and perimeter. I estimated the 98th floor perimeter columns to have a 15.6 sq. inch cross sectional area, which would then have an average wall thickness of .289 inches for an approximate 14 inch square column. While it does not give the actual wall thicknesses of the perimeter columns over the height of the towers, the NIST report does say that the wall thickness of the perimeter columns never drops below .250 inches.

You should look at it yourself.


Neither here nor there. WTC1,2 planes damage + fires + gravity = collapse.
Columns were not crushed. Visual evidence shows that after initial perimeter columns failure floors pancaked then remainder of columns toppled.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into-Swift

[alienentity]

During the debate you brought up the fact that the NIST report does not show a factor of safety of 3.00 to 1 for the core columns or a .333 DCR. However, the NIST does not provide backup data for their claim of what the DCR for the core columns actually was.

The 3.00 to 1 factor of safety for the core columns was calculated using Gregory Urich's mass analysis, the publicly available core column cross sections, an estimate of the perimeter cross sections at a given story based on weight from Urich's analysis, and the fact that the columns on each story were designed to have the same unit stress to preclude differential deflections and floor warpage between the core and perimeter. I estimated the 98th floor perimeter columns to have a 15.6 sq. inch cross sectional area, which would then have an average wall thickness of .289 inches for an approximate 14 inch square column. While it does not give the actual wall thicknesses of the perimeter columns over the height of the towers, the NIST report does say that the wall thickness of the perimeter columns never drops below .250 inches.

You should look at it yourself.

Yes but how do you explain the fact that Leslie Robertson, arguably the most experienced and knowledgeable engineer on the planet vis-a-vis the WTC towers, accepts the fire/gravity collapse from an engineering POV?

Surely, if anyone were to smell a rat, it would be he. Quite the opposite of you, he regards the controlled demolition theory as 'preposterous'.

You cannot argue that he doesn't know what he's talking about. It boggles the mind that you guys could ignore one of the main designers of the towers....

[twinstead]

Yes but how do you explain the fact that Leslie Robertson, arguably the most experienced and knowledgeable engineer on the planet vis-a-vis the WTC towers, accepts the fire/gravity collapse from an engineering POV?

Surely, if anyone were to smell a rat, it would be he. Quite the opposite of you, he regards the controlled demolition theory as 'preposterous'.

You cannot argue that he doesn't know what he's talking about. It boggles the mind that you guys could ignore one of the main designers of the towers....

It's easy. Robertson is In On It. ;)

[GlennB]

Tilt clearly seen in these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1bfPaRRK90
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53taT7FSFIk

Ah yes,so it is!
I wonder how many such videos and stills Szamboti has denied in the pursuit of his 'theory'.

[Macgyver1968]

It's easy. Robertson is In On It. ;)

Hehe...I left a dead horse's head in his bed...with a note that says "You don't know nothin'." :)

[R.Mackey]

During the debate you brought up the fact that the NIST report does not show a factor of safety of 3.00 to 1 for the core columns or a .333 DCR. However, the NIST does not provide backup data for their claim of what the DCR for the core columns actually was.

Just because they don't run the full calculation for you doesn't mean it's wrong. You can only say it's wrong if you provide superior numbers, which you attempted to do:

The 3.00 to 1 factor of safety for the core columns was calculated using Gregory Urich's mass analysis, the publicly available core column cross sections, an estimate of the perimeter cross sections at a given story based on weight from Urich's analysis, and the fact that the columns on each story were designed to have the same unit stress to preclude differential deflections and floor warpage between the core and perimeter. I estimated the 98th floor perimeter columns to have a 15.6 sq. inch cross sectional area, which would then have an average wall thickness of .289 inches for an approximate 14 inch square column. While it does not give the actual wall thicknesses of the perimeter columns over the height of the towers, the NIST report does say that the wall thickness of the perimeter columns never drops below .250 inches.

And, again, you're assuming compressive fracture instead of buckling failure, which is wrong, or you're assuming pinned connections, which is also wrong. Been over this with you repeatedly and told you so again during the debate. NIST doesn't make these mistakes and is therefore entirely credible.

It's also irrelevant, once you understand how the collapse began, and that the columns really can't effectively resist the upper load -- it doesn't hit them, it hits the floors. The columns see eccentric loads and also see their supports smashed away, so using their intact strength is optimistic to the point of uselessness.

I explained that during the debate, as well.

I have had it up to here explaining, re-explaining, and re-re-re-re-explaining to the Truth Movement. That includes you. Henceforth, I'm not going to bother with those who can't get past their Irreducible Delusions, as I've threatened to do for years.

[Tony Szamboti]

Just because they don't run the full calculation for you doesn't mean it's wrong. You can only say it's wrong if you provide superior numbers, which you attempted to do:



And, again, you're assuming compressive fracture instead of buckling failure, which is wrong, or you're assuming pinned connections, which is also wrong. Been over this with you repeatedly and told you so again during the debate. NIST doesn't make these mistakes and is therefore entirely credible.

It's also irrelevant, once you understand how the collapse began, and that the columns really can't effectively resist the upper load -- it doesn't hit them, it hits the floors. The columns see eccentric loads and also see their supports smashed away, so using their intact strength is optimistic to the point of uselessness.

I explained that during the debate, as well.

I have had it up to here explaining, re-explaining, and re-re-re-re-explaining to the Truth Movement. That includes you. Henceforth, I'm not going to bother with those who can't get past their Irreducible Delusions, as I've threatened to do for years.

The DCRs given by the NIST appear to be in a similar but opposite format to the Margin of Safety value where Factor of Safety is involved in the calculation.

Margin of Safety is computed as (allowable load/actual load x factor of safety) - 1. In the DCR sense this would be (actual load x factor of safety/allowable load).

The NIST used a factor of safety of 1.67 to 1.92 against yield and buckling for the core columns.

If the NIST used a 500,000 ton mass for the towers, like Dr. Bazant did, then a typical DCR for the core columns they gave of 0.86 would convert to a factor of safety of approximately 3.00 using Gregory Urich's mass analysis.

Using the core and perimeter cross sections at any given story and Gregory Urich's mass analysis, I get a unit stress of approximately 11,000 psi. The buckling stress for the least radius of gyration direction on each core column is approximately 3 times that, even using an effective length factor of 1.0, which some like Newtons Bit insist is the value to be used for the end conditions involved.

[triforcharity]

None of that really matters.

Why waas there NO TILT, (as you claim) but yet, it can be seen in many videos??

Do you NOT think that fire+steel+no firefighting=MAJOR PROBLEMS=COLLAPSE??

[911kongen]

When can we see the debate?

[R.Mackey]

Margin of Safety is computed as (allowable load/actual load x factor of safety) - 1. In the DCR sense this would be (actual load x factor of safety/allowable load).

The NIST used a factor of safety of 1.67 to 1.92 against yield and buckling for the core columns.

If the NIST used a 500,000 ton mass for the towers, like Dr. Bazant did,[...]

NIST didn't "use" a factor of safety here, nor did they "assume" a 500,000 ton mass. The calculations come from their model of the Towers, where both of these were computed from the materials and their dimensions directly. Your convoluted chain of assumptions did not happen.

You're just plain wrong. Add this to the stack of things you refuse to understand. I really don't see why I need to respond to this at all.

[Tony Szamboti]

NIST didn't "use" a factor of safety here,

The total cross sectional area for the core columns at the 98th floor was 2,645 sq. inches and for the perimeter 3,682 sq. inches, while the mass above (per Gregory Urich's mass analysis) was 68,295,000 lbs.. This gives a unit stress of 10,794 psi. For the ASTM A36 core columns, with a buckling stress of approximately 95% of the minimum 36,000 psi yield stress, that works out to about a 3.00 to 1 safety factor for buckling.

During the debate you said a factor of safety of 3.00 was equivalent to a DCR of .333, and it is in a straight conversion. However, quite often factor of safety is incorporated into the calculation as part of the demand similar to the Margin of Safety calculation, so I am wondering if you aren't familiar with this methodology.

If they didn't involve the factor of safety in the DCR calcuation then how do you explain the NIST showing a DCR of 0.86 for the core columns? If you just do a straight conversion to factor of safety this is the equivalent of a 1.16 factor of safety, and we know that isn't what would have been used.

It would be nice if you would explain yourself and stop just appealing to the authority of the NIST. You might not be following what they are saying, which would be understandable as it isn't explained.

[twinstead]

It would be nice if you would explain yourself and stop just appealing to the authority of the NIST. You might not be following what they are saying, which would be understandable as it isn't explained.

The man has done an EXCELLENT job of explaining himself and the NIST, especially for the engineering challenged such as myself. There really IS no better explanation of what probably happened to that building than the NIST report. R.Mackey appears to understand that more than you do.

I would like to see a scenario that fits the available evidence better--I'm all for second opinions--but I just haven't seen it.

[Tony Szamboti]

Nice derail, Tony.
So you admit the towers had tilt, and you are boxed in. Can't refute it, so change the subject.
You must think we are as stupid as the average troofer...

This thread is about the debate and Factor of Safety and DCR was brought up in the debate by Ryan. So I guess I don't understand your derail comment.

As for the tilt, I think those who insist it tilted at onset need to show that, with a frame by frame analysis, as it was not done for them by the NIST. All that is in the report is a still from video from 2 to 3 seconds into the collapse of WTC 1, when the tilt was obvious, and an assertion that it tilted and then descended.

Why don't you do an analysis to show you can actually do more than write wisecracks on an Internet forum?

[carlitos]

With all apologies Mr. Szamboti, I don't follow this as closely as I should. Do you have an alternative explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers? If so, could you post a link? Thanks in advance.

[Furcifer]

The total cross sectional area for the core columns at the 98th floor was 2,645 sq. inches and for the perimeter 3,682 sq. inches, while the mass above (per Gregory Urich's mass analysis) was 68,295,000 lbs.. This gives a unit stress of 10,794 psi. For the ASTM A36 core columns, with a buckling stress of approximately 95% of the minimum 36,000 psi yield stress, that works out to about a 3.00 to 1 safety factor for buckling.


As convoluted as this is it appears to be right. At least with my limited knowledge of things.

Let's assume you and I know what's going on here, and we've both come to the same conclusion. What you have above is still based on static conditions. The same code gives a safety factor of 12 to 15 for steel under repeated stress (for yield and ultimate respectively)

That means the loading after collapse initiation was too great. Agree?

Prior to that, the safety factor absorbed the damage and the fires until it was overcome.

That's all there is to it. A greater safety factor would have allowed for more time before collapse. It would have taken an even greater safety factor to arrest the collapse after initiation.

[Hokulele]

As for the tilt...


If the tilt wasn't present at the onset of the collapse, what would induce it?

[R.Mackey]

Tony. NIST's figures are from their SAP2000 model. Not your first-principles analysis, which is WRONG.

Last time I'm telling you this. Start your own thread if you want to keep repeating nonsense.

[rwguinn]

Tony. NIST's figures are from their SAP2000 model. Not your first-principles analysis, which is WRONG.

Last time I'm telling you this. Start your own thread if you want to keep repeating nonsense.
I really like the fact that we can now figure "Buckling StrengthTM" as a percentage of yield, regardless of L/d, or any slenderness factor.
Will sure make my life easier--but I don't think the DER's will buy it. They're pretty set in their ways. Will an argumentum ad Tony work, ya think?

[Furcifer]

I really like the fact that we can now figure "Buckling StrengthTM" as a percentage of yield, regardless of L/d, or any slenderness factor.
Will sure make my life easier--but I don't think the DER's will buy it. They're pretty set in their ways. Will an argumentum ad Tony work, ya think?

I'm sure you've gone over this before, but a little more explanation of l/d and slenderness ratio would be cool for the rest of us willing to learn a thing or two.

I see what TS is talking about, and I know there is more to it than that, but without a little more education I'm fumbling with a response.

As Ryan said, he's looking at first principles. I can see that. What I don't know is the good stuff that goes beyond that.

I know repeating yourself is a drag, but it really is of benefit to those of us that can't immerse ourselves in it other than the few hours a days we peruse the internet.

[rwguinn]

I'm sure you've gone over this before, but a little more explanation of l/d and slenderness ratio would be cool for the rest of us willing to learn a thing or two.

I see what TS is talking about, and I know there is more to it than that, but without a little more education I'm fumbling with a response.

As Ryan said, he's looking at first principles. I can see that. What I don't know is the good stuff that goes beyond that.

I know repeating yourself is a drag, but it really is of benefit to those of us that can't immerse ourselves in it other than the few hours a days we peruse the internet.
I don't want to contribute to Tony's derail (or at a minimum, sleight-of-hand via distraction, but Newtons Bit has expounded at length elsewhere. short story- for a given cross-section, a short length will hold a lot more compressive load without buckling than a long one of the same cross-section will.
"Buckling Strength" cannot be approximated as % of Yield.

[R.Mackey]

I'm sure you've gone over this before, but a little more explanation of l/d and slenderness ratio would be cool for the rest of us willing to learn a thing or two.

I know repeating yourself is a drag, but it really is of benefit to those of us that can't immerse ourselves in it other than the few hours a days we peruse the internet.

The reason we're not going to cover it here is because it's off-topic, and because Tony has already had it explained to him repeatedly.

You can start a new thread if you want, but the most productive use of your time would be to search for posts by Newtons Bit, where this has been hashed out in detail.

The core error, in brief, is Tony's utterly random and completely indefensible claim that buckling would occur at 95% of linear yield. When buckling occurs is a function of geometry, and there is no geometry in his first principles analysis. NIST's analysis is a full-on finite element simulation of the as-built structure, and is therefore credible. No argument Tony's proposed against it even makes it past the giggle test.

ETA: When two engineers give you the same answer independently, it's usually right. ;)

[rwguinn]

The reason we're not going to cover it here is because it's off-topic, and because Tony has already had it explained to him repeatedly.

You can start a new thread if you want, but the most productive use of your time would be to search for posts by Newtons Bit, where this has been hashed out in detail.

The core error, in brief, is Tony's utterly random and completely indefensible claim that buckling would occur at 95% of linear yield. When buckling occurs is a function of geometry, and there is no geometry in his first principles analysis. NIST's analysis is a full-on finite element simulation of the as-built structure, and is therefore credible. No argument Tony's proposed against it even makes it past the giggle test.

ETA: When two engineers give you the same answer independently, it's usually right. ;)
Correlary to Asimov's law, do you think:
"If an elderly, but distinguished scientist says that a thing is impossible, is is almost certainly wrong"
CLarke's Corrilary:
"If a distinguished, but elderly scientist states that a thing may be possible, he is likely correct"
Mackey's postulate:
"If two engineers independently give the same answer to a question, it is most probably the correct one"

[R.Mackey]

I already did address it, Tony... :rolleyes:

[rwguinn]

It seems you aren't going to address whether or not you believe the core columns had a factor of safety of 3.00, even though you brought it up in the debate.

Somehow I am not surprised.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5157861#post5157861
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5162444#post5162444

Care to try again?

[Tony Szamboti]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5157861#post5157861
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5162444#post5162444

Care to try again?

He didn't address the point in either of those replies.

So let's ask Ryan straight out and you too.

Do you believe the core columns had a factor of safety less than 3.00? If so, what was it and what do you back up your contention with?

[R.Mackey]

What you've just witnessed is why debating the Truth Movement is a waste of time.

The producer informed me that he should be able to salvage the second show, despite my equipment failures. Probably another week or so until they're done. I'll keep you posted.

I'll also open up a new thread, when the time comes, for future ideas and desires. Personally, I am rather disgusted with how direct debate turns out and would rather do more educational shows, but I will be interested to see what you all think. But that will be another thread.

[R.Mackey]

For further reading on the significance of the DCR, I also recommend posts by Architect, most recently this one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4494167#post4494167). The NIST calculations affirm that the safety factor in the core is more like 40-80%, not a factor of 3. The safety factor of 3 is a Heiwa delusion, and he was quite rightly raked over the coals for it.

This officially closes this question. We've learned something. As scientists, we now move on.

[Furcifer]

The reason we're not going to cover it here is because it's off-topic, and because Tony has already had it explained to him repeatedly.

You can start a new thread if you want, but the most productive use of your time would be to search for posts by Newtons Bit, where this has been hashed out in detail.

The core error, in brief, is Tony's utterly random and completely indefensible claim that buckling would occur at 95% of linear yield. When buckling occurs is a function of geometry, and there is no geometry in his first principles analysis. NIST's analysis is a full-on finite element simulation of the as-built structure, and is therefore credible. No argument Tony's proposed against it even makes it past the giggle test.

ETA: When two engineers give you the same answer independently, it's usually right. ;)

Well a quick look at the text in front of me isn't very telling. End fixity factor? Johnson formula? Column analysis spreadsheets? It's like you need some sorta training to figure this stuff out...

It's hard to learn from the back of the book when you've just read the first few pages. ;)

[bill smith]

For further reading on the significance of the DCR, I also recommend posts by Architect, most recently this one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4494167#post4494167). The NIST calculations affirm that the safety factor in the core is more like 40-80%, not a factor of 3. The safety factor of 3 is a Heiwa delusion, and he was quite rightly raked over the coals for it.

This officially closes this question. We've learned something. As scientists, we now move on.

lol

[alienentity]

What you've just witnessed is why debating the Truth Movement is a waste of time.

The producer informed me that he should be able to salvage the second show, despite my equipment failures. Probably another week or so until they're done. I'll keep you posted.

I'll also open up a new thread, when the time comes, for future ideas and desires. Personally, I am rather disgusted with how direct debate turns out and would rather do more educational shows, but I will be interested to see what you all think. But that will be another thread.

It's impossible to judge how effective the debate was without seeing it ourselves. But I do think if you're able to get your message out there it's always a good thing.

If you're interested in collaborating on a comprehensive video debunking the Jones/Harrit paper, I'm up for it. Let me know.

[Tony Szamboti]

For further reading on the significance of the DCR, I also recommend posts by Architect, most recently this one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4494167#post4494167). The NIST calculations affirm that the safety factor in the core is more like 40-80%, not a factor of 3. The safety factor of 3 is a Heiwa delusion, and he was quite rightly raked over the coals for it.

This officially closes this question. We've learned something. As scientists, we now move on.

Just to show Architect does not understand what the NIST did take a look at this comment from the post you mentioned

Core columns in WTC typically had a Demand to Capacity Ratio (DCR) of 0.83, ie a safety factor of 1/0.83=1.20.

Architect is writing it like DCR is a straight reciprocal of factor of safety and in general it is but that isn't how the NIST did it. In their case they incorporated the mimimum factor of safety in the calculation and although the NIST does say that the factor of safety is inherent in the calculation, it might not be clear to those who aren't familiar.

Factor of safety is a straight forward relation of FoS = yield stress/actual stress or FoS = yield load/actual load. The AISC manual has always limited compressive loads to a maximum of 0.6Fy which is a minimum factor of safety of 1.67. No building like the WTC would have a factor of safety against gravity of just 1.20. That is ludicrous.

The reality is that the NIST used an equation like this: DCR = (actual stress x minimum factor of safety)/yield stress with the minimum factor of safety being part of the demand. Now if the mimimum factor of safety was 1.92 with a yield stress of 36,000 psi and an actual stress of 15,562 psi then the NIST DCR would have been shown as 0.83.

In the NIST calculations of DCR how much the DCR is less than 1.00 is telling you how much margin you have even after the minimum factor of safety is satisfied. If the value is 1.00 then it means you have just enough strength to meet the minimum factor of safety.

If you want to find the mimimum factor of safety from the NIST DCRs multiply it by the yield stress and divide by the actual stress. If you want the actual factor of safety then multiply the minimum factor of safety by the reciprocal of the NIST DCR. In this case multiply 1.92 by 1/0.83 which is 1.92 x 1.20 = 2.30

What the NIST did with the DCRs was similar to what we do in aerospace where we use the Margin of Safety which is MoS = [yield stress/(actual stress x factor of safety)] -1. In this case with a minimum factor of safety of 1.92 a yield stress of 36,000 psi and an actual stress of 15,562 psi the Margin of Safety would be MoS = [36,000 psi/(15,562 psi x 1.92)] - 1 = .20, with anything greater than zero meaning there is additional margin above the minimum factor of safety. If it was zero then it would mean there was enough strength to just meet the minimum factor of safety.

Seeing that you bought into what Architect was mistakenly saying Ryan, I am starting to think you don't understand this either. You also treated the NIST DCRs as a direct reciprocal of factor of safety in our debate.

I showed above that with a minimum factor of safety of 1.92 the actual factor of safety in the NIST DCR of 0.83 was 2.30, which would be 130% greater than minimum not 40 to 80%. It is also not hard to see that the NIST could have easily had a difference from the 3.00 I calculated if they had a little greater mass in their model than what Gregory Urich calculates in his analysis. I used Gregory Urich's analysis to do my calculations. I don't think we know what the mass in the NIST model was exactly.

[Tricky]

A number of polls split to AAH for bickering. Please keep posts on topic and do not personalize the arguments.

[Tony Szamboti]

If the NIST had not increased the demand by multiplying it by the factor of safety their DCRs for the core columns would have been in the 0.40 to .045 range.

I am not saying what they did was wrong but that one needs to understand just what they did by multiplying the actual demand by the factor of safety in their DCR calculation. Their DCR is thus a measure of how much margin one has beyond the minimum factor of safety. It is not a direct comparison of actual demand to actual capacity. This can be misleading if one doesn't understand their methodology.

A 0.43 DCR is the direct reciprocal of the factor of safety of 2.30 and is much closer to what I calculated using Gregory Urich's mass analysis. It would be interesting to see what mass the NIST actually used, as opposed to what Gregory Urich calculated in his rigorous mass analysis, which corresponds to the mass per unit area seen in other large buildings built in the same era, such as the Sears tower and the John Hancock building. The NIST factor of safety would have the upper block of WTC 1 weighing about 99 million pounds vs. Gregory's 68 million pounds and their mass per unit area would be 907 kg/sq. meter vs. Gregory's 626 kg/sq. meter. The Sears tower has an advertised mass per unit area of 476 kg/sq. meter and the Hancock building a 670 kg/sq. meter. My instinct is that Gregory's analysis is more accurate and the actual factor of safety of the core columns was approximately 3.00.

[BasqueArch]

Tony Szamboti
If you were to calculate the buckling stress for each of the core columns about their least radius of gyration using the appropriate KL/r you would find that they all have buckling stresses near the yield stress.

What I was saying was that the buckling stresses of the core columns were in the 95% of the yield stress range because in the case of these relatively stocky columns the actual calculated buckling stress is close to the yield stress.


Some people do not understand or believe the short version of the following, so here's the long version.

Heiwa, Gage, Chandler et al believe that if the smaller upper block fell onto the larger lower block, the lower block would have arrested the collapse. Since the collapse was not arrested, CD must have been used.

Tony Szamboti believes that if the smaller upper block fell axially onto the larger lower block columns, the lower block columns would have arrested the collapse. Since the collapse was not arrested, CD must have been used

But This Is Not What Happened. This Is What Happened:

1) WTC2. (and mutatis mutandis WTC1) It is not possible for all exterior column walls to have failed at the same time, as the combination of the columns and floors damage, redistributed weight and heat damage varied and failures begin at the weakest point first. In this case it was the east side that was weakest and failed first. We know this because the building began the tilt that direction. The airplane hit WTC2 south wall off center and at an angle, pushing flammable debris up against the east wall. The fires cooked this wall and the perimeter columns failure began here.

2) Once the east wall began to fall 12 feet, the upper block pivoted (tilted) down . The tilting upper mass applied a horizontal torque force to the remaining heat and impact damaged vertical columns that bent them, and the columns fractured at the point where the columns changed from vertical to where they were bent. When all the columns fractured, the upper mass stopped tilting and fell vertically down, and the load path changed (because the columns above were not located directly above the columns below, up to 3 feet off center per NIST) from column-above-to-column-below to column-above-to-floor slab-below and the entire upper mass fell, unattached to any of the columns below. Once the tilt occurred and the remainder of the columns fractured, the lower columns below the failure did not carry the weight of the upper block any longer. The top upper block columns punched through the lower floor slabs.

Before and during WTC2 initial collapse showing 3 foot columns displacement.
http://911stories.googlepages.com/ST1.jpg/ST1-full.jpg

3) (3.3 feet column spacing x 17.5 feet floor area x 110 lb /sf LL+DL x 29 stories) / (1.2 sf x 1.2 sf of column area) = 128,000 lbs per columns square foot (static load only) landed onto the 2.5” to 4” thick floor slab x 14" x 14" area. The floor slab was designed to support (110 lb DL+LL /SF x assumed 3.0 static load safety factor = 330 lb / SF) and failed (128,000 lb/sf column load > 330 lb/sf slab design load ). When all the columns above fractured , the block stopped tilting, and they punched through the slab below. The displaced columns above did not hit the off center columns below.

4) We know the floor slabs failed first before the columns failed because of the visual evidence . Had the columns below failed before the floor slabs, the columns would have failed in buckling (or decapitated by CD) with portions of the floor structures still attached to the columns and the perimeter wall assemblies would have fallen vertically nearly “onto its own footprint”. The floor slabs pancaked, yes pancaked, before the unbraced columns failed in buckling at the bolted perimeter connections (36 feet oc) and welded core column locations (36 feet oc). There is no evidence of universal buckling of columns at the column body that would indicate column crushing forces or columns decapitation that would show CD. After the floors pancaked, the unsupported perimeter and core columns failed at the connections and toppled onto the ground.

Picture of WTC1 uncrushed columns, floors failed first then columns toppled outward, not onto “its own footprint” had the load path been axially through the perimeter columns or CD'd.
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/columns.jpg

5) Therefore it doesn’t matter if “ you would find that they all have buckling stresses near the yield stress.” because the columns below did not fail by crushing or CD. They failed by pancaked floors and toppling.

6) Therefore it doesn’t matter if “the 3.00 to 1 factor of safety for the core columns was calculated using Gregory Urich's mass analysis.” because the columns below did not fail by crushing or CD. They failed by pancaked floors and toppling.

7) Therefore it doesn’t matter if ” the columns on each story were designed to have the same unit stress to preclude differential deflections and floor warpage between the core and perimeter.” because the columns below did not fail by crushing or CD. They failed by pancaked floors and toppling.

8). Therefore it doesn’t matter if “ the NIST used a factor of safety of 1.67 to 1.92 against yield and buckling for the core columns.” because the columns below did not fail by crushing or CD. They failed by pancaked floors and toppling.

9) Therefore it doesn’t matter if “you were to calculate the buckling stress for each of the core columns about their least radius of gyration using the appropriate KL/r” because the columns below did not fail by crushing or CD. They failed by pancaked floors and toppling.

...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is great confusion about Bazant’s collapse theory.


“For our purpose, we may assume that all the impact forces go into the columns and are distributed among them equally. Unlikely though such a distribution may be, it is nevertheless the most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest. If the building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact forces, it would fail under any other distribution.”

http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/imgs/figure4.gif
From Bazant - Fig. 4. Scenario of tilting of upper part of building ~South Tower - showing horizontal bending forces and displacement of upper and lower columns.

From Bazant’s first paper.
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf



Summary:
WTC1,2 failed by gravity collapse only.
On the weakest wall the perimeter columns failed, the upper stories tilted 3 feet (WTC2), the remainder of the columns fractured, the tilt stopped , the upper stories fell straight down, the displaced columns above punched through the floor slab below - not hit the columns below, the floor slabs pancaked, and the unsupported perimeter and core columns then toppled to the ground.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can’t reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. -Swift

[Furcifer]

I'm sure you've gone over this before, but a little more explanation of l/d and slenderness ratio would be cool for the rest of us willing to learn a thing or two.


The reason we're not going to cover it here is because it's off-topic, and because Tony has already had it explained to him repeatedly.



And, again, you're assuming compressive fracture instead of buckling failure, which is wrong, or you're assuming pinned connections, which is also wrong. Been over this with you repeatedly and told you so again during the debate. NIST doesn't make these mistakes and is therefore entirely credible.


I'm not sure what's off topic? The OP suggests the thread is about the debate and questions brought up therein.

[R.Mackey]

Sigh. DCR, one more time.

The DCR that NIST computes is the Demand to Capacity Ratio, where the Demand is the actual load (the "in service load"), and the Capacity is the design load, which incorporates a factor of safety mandated by the ASCE7 AISC standard.

NIST's calculation is not a first-principles analysis, like Tony carried out. It is based on the actual SAP2000 model, and that means modeling the materials, the geometry, and the weight. NIST's estimate of the service load was based on material dimensions for the dead load, original WTC construction documents for the applied dead load, and the NYCBC 2001 estimate of average office contents for the live load. This weight, incidentally, is consistent with Gregory Urich's computations, so Tony claiming a difference here is another mistake on his part. NIST also included the wind loads as "in service," and it is important to note this is somewhat different from the wind loads estimated at the time of design.

There were two estimates of loading provided, one corresponding to the original design case, and the other, more relevant "state of the practice" case which primarily considers an ordinary wind load. The distinction is unimportant since the core loads are practically the same between them.

NIST found, as described in NCSTAR1-2A Table 5-3, that the DCR of the core columns averaged to 0.86, and that 9.9% of core columns exceeded a DCR of 1.0.

Now, to translate this to Factor of Safety, we need to understand what factor was built into these design equations. As AISC describes and was confirmed by NIST in its 2004 conference, the relevant FoS for the core situation is 1.67. So, to compute the effective, in-service FoS, we simply compute 1.67 / 0.86 = 1.94.

Not 3.0.

The Factor of Safety = 3 is a lie, and I called Tony on it during the debate.

This Factor of Safety was further reduced by impact, as you can read in NCSTAR1-6D. This is the parameter I referred to in our debate, as you will see when it's complete.

It's also totally irrelevant to the collapse, once again, because the mechanism of collapse removes supporting elements from the columns, and this reduces or eliminates their strength. The bulk of debris does not land squarely on the columns in the first place. The more relevant resistance is that of the floor system, which can support -- according to Tony -- a maximum 29 million pounds, or less than 45% of the mass of the upper block at the start of the collapse, and getting steadily worse as the descending material snowballs.

This is all information that has been presented here in the JREF Forums before, and available for years. I took advantage of it. I've learned. Tony has not. This is why debating him was rather disappointing.

[911kongen]

Edited for civility. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

Sigh. DCR, one more time.

The DCR that NIST computes is the Demand to Capacity Ratio, where the Demand is the actual load (the "in service load"), and the Capacity is the design load, which incorporates a factor of safety mandated by the ASCE7 standard.

NIST's calculation is not a first-principles analysis, like Tony carried out. It is based on the actual SAP2000 model, and that means modeling the materials, the geometry, and the weight. NIST's estimate of the service load was based on material dimensions for the dead load, original WTC construction documents for the applied dead load, and the NYCBC 2001 estimate of average office contents for the live load. This weight, incidentally, is consistent with Gregory Urich's computations, so Tony claiming a difference here is another mistake on his part. NIST also included the wind loads as "in service," and it is important to note this is somewhat different from the wind loads estimated at the time of design.

There were two estimates of loading provided, one corresponding to the original design case, and the other, more relevant "state of the practice" case which primarily considers an ordinary wind load. The distinction is unimportant since the core loads are practically the same between them.

NIST found, as described in NCSTAR1-2A Table 5-3, that the DCR of the core columns averaged to 0.86, and that 9.9% of core columns exceeded a DCR of 1.0.

Now, to translate this to Factor of Safety, we need to understand what factor was built into these design equations. As ASCE7 describes and was confirmed by NIST in its 2004 conference, the relevant FoS for the core situation is 1.67. So, to compute the effective, in-service FoS, we simply compute 1.67 / 0.86 = 1.94.

Not 3.0.

The Factor of Safety = 3 is a lie, and I called Tony on it during the debate.

This Factor of Safety was further reduced by impact, as you can read in NCSTAR1-6D. This is the parameter I referred to in our debate, as you will see when it's complete.

It's also totally irrelevant to the collapse, once again, because the mechanism of collapse removes supporting elements from the columns, and this reduces or eliminates their strength. The bulk of debris does not land squarely on the columns in the first place. The more relevant resistance is that of the floor system, which can support -- according to Tony -- a maximum 29 million pounds, or less than 45% of the mass of the upper block at the start of the collapse, and getting steadily worse as the descending material snowballs.

This is all information that has been presented here in the JREF Forums before, and available for years. I took advantage of it. I've learned. Tony has not. This is why debating him was rather disappointing.

[Hokulele]

Sigh. DCR, one more time.

The DCR that NIST computes is the Demand to Capacity Ratio, where the Demand is the actual load (the "in service load"), and the Capacity is the design load, which incorporates a factor of safety mandated by the ASCE7 AISC standard.


I admit, most of this discussion is way outside of my area of expertise, but I do have a question. Are all of these calculations of DCR and safety factors meant to apply to the columns immediately below the area of impact? In other words, is Mr. Szamboti claiming that without additional assistance, the collapse would have been arrested immediately at the point of failure?

If so, regardless of the design DCR and safety factor, does it really make sense to assume those specific column segments in that area are actually performing to their design specifications?

[R.Mackey]

This is as-built. That's what Tony's referring to, and it is useless on top of useless even if he'd get it right instead of inflating the numbers.

NIST in NCSTAR1-6D looks at the DCR of columns in the damaged section, particularly Figures 4-68 through 4-71 of NCSTAR1-6D, demonstrating that the impact and the fire afterward has a profound effect on the core. And these figures don't take into account additional weakening from creep and vertical displacement.

To treat both, it is more useful to look at strain than load and capacity, such as is done in 4-72 through 4-81. The strain conditions at the end of the run are of a structure at imminent failure no matter how you slice it. Tony's calculations, of course, don't address this at all.

[TruthersLie]

I have a rather shocking fluorescent green shirt and jittering paisley necktie combination. Wear it to weddings, mostly. It's quite nice, in its own way, though it tends to damage recording equipment.

Please tell me you didn't wear this?

[Hokulele]

This is as-built. That's what Tony's referring to, and it is useless on top of useless even if he'd get it right instead of inflating the numbers.

NIST in NCSTAR1-6D looks at the DCR of columns in the damaged section, particularly Figures 4-68 through 4-71 of NCSTAR1-6D, demonstrating that the impact and the fire afterward has a profound effect on the core. And these figures don't take into account additional weakening from creep and vertical displacement.

To treat both, it is more useful to look at strain than load and capacity, such as is done in 4-72 through 4-81. The strain conditions at the end of the run are of a structure at imminent failure no matter how you slice it. Tony's calculations, of course, don't address this at all.


That's what I thought, thanks.

[R.Mackey]

What, and ruin the suspense? How else am I supposed to get people to tune in?

[GlennB]

“For our purpose, we may assume that all the impact forces go into the columns and are distributed among them equally. Unlikely though such a distribution may be, it is nevertheless the most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest. If the building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact forces, it would fail under any other distribution.”


I was going to say that this is one of the most significant quotes that any CD'ist should try to understand. Then I put a slice of it into Google - just as a test - and found that the word 'optimistic' here is totally misunderstood by CD'ists. <sigh>

[TruthersLie]

What, and ruin the suspense? How else am I supposed to get people to tune in?

I really hope it wasn't like this

http://n2dkq.com/neon-green.jpg

[R.Mackey]

More like this, actually:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/91934ac7a6ea50ed2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17737)

[alienentity]

Sigh. DCR, one more time.

The DCR that NIST computes is the Demand to Capacity Ratio, where the Demand is the actual load (the "in service load"), and the Capacity is the design load, which incorporates a factor of safety mandated by the ASCE7 AISC standard.


The bulk of debris does not land squarely on the columns in the first place. The more relevant resistance is that of the floor system, which can support -- according to Tony -- a maximum 29 million pounds, or less than 45% of the mass of the upper block at the start of the collapse, and getting steadily worse as the descending material snowballs.



I assume the 29 million pounds refers to the static load capacity, not accounting for any acceleration of that mass onto the floor systems?

[R.Mackey]

Yup. Which is why the upper block didn't even have to be moving to cause a cascading failure. Which is yet another reason why there's no "jolt."

Once that mass is no longer carried by the columns, it's all over.

[Tony Szamboti]

Yup. Which is why the upper block didn't even have to be moving to cause a cascading failure. Which is yet another reason why there's no "jolt."

Once that mass is no longer carried by the columns, it's all over.

I would bet a years pay that you can't get a scale model to initiate a global collapse with one wall bowed inward and then propagate without a jolt.

[R.Mackey]

Facepalm time, Tony. You've seen it twice, in full scale. When will you understand that the lack of a jolt is evidence for the collapse hypothesis I've laid out? The problem isn't your observation, it's your interpretation. Everyone else seems to get it, and I do mean everyone.

[911kongen]

I would bet a years pay that you can't get a scale model to initiate a global collapse with one wall bowed inward and then propagate without a jolt.

I have done that with a card house !

[Hokulele]

I would bet a years pay that you can't get a scale model to initiate a global collapse with one wall bowed inward and then propagate without a jolt.


If you are willing to define the terms a bit more closely, I will take you up on that bet. The two terms that concern me the most are "scale model" and "without a jolt". Regarding the term "scale model", I would want you to come up with a list of the parameters involved based on the understanding that a simple resizing will not replicate the dynamics accurately. Regard the term "without a jolt", are you looking for a single jolt of a specific magnitude? If so, please define that magnitude (accounting for scaling issues, of course). If not, what are you looking for?

[rwguinn]

I would bet a years pay that you can't get a scale model to initiate a global collapse with one wall bowed inward and then propagate without a jolt.
Sucker bet, Tony.
At least you seem to realize that gravity DOES NOT SCALE.

[BasqueArch]

I would bet a years pay that you can't get a scale model to initiate a global collapse with one wall bowed inward and then propagate without a jolt.

With the walls bowed the columns fell onto the slab below, not atop the columns. The columns fell onto the slab below = "no jolt"

There, RM saved you the need to build a scale model.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(nobody believes the short version, no one reads the long version)

[triforcharity]

I would bet a years pay that you can't get a scale model to initiate a global collapse with one wall bowed inward and then propagate without a jolt.

Tony,

I have stated before, I am no engineer, and never claim to be. Why do you know understand that when you scale something down, the materials behave differently than at full scale?? Why do you think they crash FULL SIZE CARS in crash tests?? It would be much cheeper to build smaller cars, of course to scale, and crash them??

Its because they would behave differently.

Same reason firefighters train in live burns often. I can pretend all day long, but untill you do a full scale live burn, you wouldn't understand how it feels.

[Furcifer]

Sigh. DCR, one more time.


Thanks. The "sigh" just made it that much more patronizing.

This is a forum for discussion. Not for research. Anyone using the search function here can attest to that.

I really don't blame you for taking this attitude. You don't want to explain yourself again, then don't.

It's pretty simple. When you find yourself taking about issues you've already discussed, stop. If you find yourself linking to previous posts, stop.

"sigh"ing like a little girl who didn't get her way at the checkout line is beneath you. It's beneath the both of us really.

If I didn't mention it, thanks.

[R.Mackey]

Don't take it so personal. I was mostly sighing at Tony. Maybe you haven't followed the discussion, but he's had it explained to him, in person, solely for his benefit by numerous posters here. And he still doesn't get it.

Again, this is why "debating" the Truth Movement is futile. Their only weapon is dogged refusal to accept reality.

I welcome Tony to prove me wrong about that last statement by coming to terms with the tilt prior to collapse. Or the inward bowing several minutes before collapse. Most people, having seen actual photographs of these phenomena, don't need to be told a hundred times, but the Truth Movement is special in this respect.

[WildCat]

Most people, having seen actual photographs of these phenomena, don't need to be told a hundred times, but the Truth Movement is special in this respect.
Special as in short school bus special.

[Algebra34]

Don't mean to derail this but I think it's on topic.

Did the core twist? When the upper block fell did it turn, and in turn twist the core from top to bottom? Thinking of the upper block as a door knob and the core as the shaft. As the block falls and turns, it twists the core also. This is different from a progressive gravity induced collapse no? Was it a combination at all? Is this just a silly hypothesis?

[ElMondoHummus]

I'll let the engineers - or Architect - answer this definitively, but from my layman's point of view, there could only be so much travel in any "twist" before the connections between the columns would sever, let alone sever core to floor truss connections. So, again from a layman's perspective, I can't imagine there being much twist of the core at all.

I'll subject myself to correction from the legitimate engineers in this forum, though.

[R.Mackey]

Twist? No. WTC 2 experienced a slight twist as it deformed, and this is predicted by simulation (see Case D in NCSTAR1-6D), but the actual collapses involve virtually no movement about the vertical axis for either Tower. Not sure what difference that would make in any event, neither explosives nor lack thereof are expected to induce much twist.

[Algebra34]

Twist? No. WTC 2 experienced a slight twist as it deformed, and this is predicted by simulation (see Case D in NCSTAR1-6D), but the actual collapses involve virtually no movement about the vertical axis for either Tower. Not sure what difference that would make in any event, neither explosives nor lack thereof are expected to induce much twist.

Thanks. I wasn't thinking explosives in this scenario. I just thought that the core would have been twisting, breaking away, and popping the floor connections. This would have been hard to see contained inside the outer cage. Just a thought.

[Tony Szamboti]

Don't take it so personal. I was mostly sighing at Tony. Maybe you haven't followed the discussion, but he's had it explained to him, in person, solely for his benefit by numerous posters here. And he still doesn't get it.

Again, this is why "debating" the Truth Movement is futile. Their only weapon is dogged refusal to accept reality.

I welcome Tony to prove me wrong about that last statement by coming to terms with the tilt prior to collapse. Or the inward bowing several minutes before collapse. Most people, having seen actual photographs of these phenomena, don't need to be told a hundred times, but the Truth Movement is special in this respect.

Ryan, I would say you are the one who denies reality.

Your example in your paper on the amount of potential energy used in collapsing the building is ridiculous on it's face to anyone with a strong technical background. You show an example where the collapse acceleration would be 1.7 m/s/s and then go through the math to show that the difference between it and the rate of gravity (9.8 m/s/s) is the resistance of 8.1m/s/s and that it is equal to 81% of the building's potential energy, which would have been used in the destruction.

This little manipulation sounds impressive at first unless one is keen enough to realize that the building structure was designed to hold several times 100% of the potential energy.

The reality is that using the resistance to the continuous acceleration which occurred is not valid to use as a measure of the energy required, as it is not correlated to a calculated amount of energy which would be required to collapse the building. For instance, if demolition devices were used to remove resistance then the actual resistance to free fall acceleration experienced does not account for that.

There is only one way a lesser amount of energy could do the job and that is with concentrated periodic impacts/dynamic loads which require deceleration, which unfortunately for your story is not observed. Your own theory requires huge decelerations from jolts but you don't have any evidence of them, so you then spin a story that the columns weren't involved and the entire upper block fell on the floor slabs, or that there were lots of little jolts, without explaining that the aggregate of these little jolts would have to cause the same velocity loss as one large one due to the same energy dissipation.

These are just some of several misleading type of arguments that you make, and it is hard for me to imagine that you don't know better if you are actually a mechanical engineer.

I am wondering when the majority of honest posters here, who may not suspect the misleading nature of these arguments and/or just don't know better, are going to start figuring it out.

[R.Mackey]

This little manipulation sounds impressive at first unless one is keen enough to realize that the building structure was designed to hold several times 100% of the potential energy.

This statement is sheer gibberish. Loads are a measure of force, not energy.

The reality is that using the acceleration which occurred is not valid to use as a measure of the energy required, as it is not correlated to a calculated amount of energy which would be required to collapse the building. For instance, if demolition devices were used to remove resistance then the actual acceleration does not account for that.

The amount of work required to collapse the structure is highly variable. It depends on exactly how pieces were hit, how the structure degraded as the collapse progressed, etc. This is essentially unpredictable due to the chaos of collapse. We do, however, have computed upper bounds on this required energy, and found them to be well below the available gravitational energy. As you know.

What I computed was an estimate of how much energy was actually absorbed, not how much was needed. Given that the amount is enormous, to adjust it significantly requires an unrealistic amount of explosives. It's a simple argument.

This is just one of several misleading type of arguments that you make, and it is hard for me to imagine that you don't know better.

I am wondering when the majority of honest posters here, who may not suspect the misleading nature of these arguments and/or just don't know better, are going to start figuring it out.

This from the guy who says there was no tilt before collapse, despite bringing his own video that clearly showed it happening? Wow.

[Tony Szamboti]

This statement is sheer gibberish. Loads are a measure of force, not energy.



The amount of work required to collapse the structure is highly variable. It depends on exactly how pieces were hit, how the structure degraded as the collapse progressed, etc. This is essentially unpredictable due to the chaos of collapse. We do, however, have computed upper bounds on this required energy, and found them to be well below the available gravitational energy. As you know.

What I computed was an estimate of how much energy was actually absorbed, not how much was needed. Given that the amount is enormous, to adjust it significantly requires an unrealistic amount of explosives. It's a simple argument.



This from the guy who says there was no tilt before collapse, despite bringing his own video that clearly showed it happening? Wow.

Talk about gibberish. Of course, you have no real analysis to back up anything you say concerning collapse initiation and propagation including whether the tilt occurred at onset or after the building dropped vertically for several stories.

Your arguments are misleading and obviously cannot be backed by observation and rigorous analysis. In many places making these types of arguments is called sophistry.

[TruthersLie]

More like this, actually:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/91934ac7a6ea50ed2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17737)

This is why I love science nerds...

I nearly spit coffee all over my moniter... I love it.

[TruthersLie]

I would bet a years pay that you can't get a scale model to initiate a global collapse with one wall bowed inward and then propagate without a jolt.

Hey Tony.

Wow... and you bring up scale and then ignore it in one sentence.

Heres the challenge. Create the scale model so that it accurately reflects the conditions in the towers. Just do the math. Any scale that is reasonable to build. Say 10 stories...

make it 1 1/10th the size... simple and easy. Now go and do the math and find out what that is rather a major pain in the ass...

why is it that truthers don't understand scale? I mean we have seen cardboard boxes, lemons, pizza boxes, and tons of uneducated ill informed twoofs on youtube who have NO idea... oh and I can't leave out the snowpacked towers video either...

[BasqueArch]

I would bet a years pay that you can't get a scale model to initiate a global collapse with one wall bowed inward and then propagate without a jolt.

Medium length version - just right.

Heiwa, Gage, Chandler et al treat the upper and lower WTC columns, joists and slab structures as homogeneous lumps of material and believe the smaller lump could not have crushed the larger lump, CD must have been used.

Tony Szamboti believes that if the smaller upper block columns fell axially onto the larger lower block columns, there should have been a "jolt" at columns impact and the lower block columns would have arrested the collapse. Since the collapse was not arrested, and TS did not see a " jolt", TS believes CD must have been used

But That Is Not What Happened. This Is What Happened:
- BasqueArch, Arch as in Architect licensed 30 years

1) WTC2. (and WTC1 similar) The east wall bowed and collapsed first . We know this because the building began the tilt that direction.

2)The east wall and upper block pivoted (tilted) down . The tilting upper mass applied a horizontal torque (not vertical compression force) to the remaining heat and impact damaged vertical columns that bent them, and the columns fractured at the point where the columns bent. When all the columns fractured, the upper mass stopped tilting and fell vertically down, The top upper block columns punched through the lower floor slabs.

Before and during WTC2 initial collapse showing 3 foot columns vertical displacement.
http://911stories.googlepages.com/ST1.jpg/ST1-full.jpg

3) 128,000 lbs per columns square foot (static load only) landed onto the 2.5” to 4” thick floor slab x 14" x 14" area design loaded at 330 lb / SF and failed (128,000 lb/sf column load > 330 lb/sf slab design load ). When all the columns above fractured , the block stopped tilting, and the columns punched through the slab below. The displaced columns above did not hit the off center columns below.

4) We know the floor slabs failed first before the columns failed because of the visual evidence . Had the columns below failed before the floor slabs, the columns would have failed in buckling (or decapitated by CD) with portions of the floor structures still attached to the columns and the perimeter wall assemblies would have fallen vertically nearly “onto its own footprint”. There is no evidence of universal buckling of columns at the column body that would indicate column crushing forces or columns decapitation that would show CD. After the floors pancaked, the unsupported perimeter and core columns failed at the connections and toppled onto the ground.

Picture of WTC1 uncrushed columns, floors failed first then columns toppled outward, not onto “its own footprint” had the load path been axially through the perimeter columns or CD'd.
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/columns.jpg

5) Therefore it doesn’t matter if “ you would find that they all have buckling stresses near the yield stress.” because the columns below did not fail by crushing or CD. They toppled after the floors pancaked past them.

6) Therefore it doesn’t matter if “the 3.00 to 1 factor of safety for the core columns was calculated using Gregory Urich's mass analysis.” because the columns below did not fail by crushing or CD. They toppled after the floors pancaked past them.

7) Therefore it doesn’t matter if ” the columns on each story were designed to have the same unit stress to preclude differential deflections and floor warpage between the core and perimeter.” because the columns below did not fail by crushing or CD. They toppled after the floors pancaked past them.

and so on ...
...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is great confusion among the masses about Bazant’s collapse theory.


“For our purpose, we may assume that all the impact forces go into the columns and are distributed among them equally. Unlikely though such a distribution may be, it is nevertheless the most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest. If the building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact forces, it would fail under any other distribution.” - Bazant

http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/imgs/figure4.gif
From Bazant - Fig. 4. Scenario of tilting of upper part of building ~South Tower - showing horizontal bending forces and displacement of upper and lower columns.

From Bazant’s first paper.
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf



Summary:
WTC1,2 failed by gravity collapse only.
On the weakest wall the perimeter columns failed, the upper stories tilted (WTC2), the remainder of the columns fractured, the tilt stopped , the upper stories fell straight down, the displaced columns above punched through the floor slab below - not hit the columns below - the floor slabs pancaked, and the unsupported perimeter and core columns then toppled to the ground.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can’t reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. -Swift[/QUOTE]

[R.Mackey]

Talk about gibberish. Of course, you have no real analysis to back up anything you say concerning collapse initiation and propagation including whether the tilt occurred at onset or after the building dropped vertically for several stories.

Your arguments are misleading and obviously cannot be backed by observation and rigorous analysis. In many places making these types of arguments is called sophistry.

Tony. The tilt occured before the upper structure dropped. There are pictures of it in NIST. There is a frame-by-frame analysis by many clever people over at Gregory's forum. There are clear, quantified pictures of the south wall buckling at initiation which leads to the tilt.

This is your Irreducible Delusion. You can't call me misleading or a sophist or whatever, with a straight face, until you and reality are on speaking terms. This is why debating with you is a waste of time -- you simply can't fathom that you've been beaten, or how badly. Trust me, it's extremely bad. Stop digging, stop yapping, start learning.

[rwguinn]

Talk about gibberish. Of course, you have no real analysis to back up anything you say concerning collapse initiation and propagation including whether the tilt occurred at onset or after the building dropped vertically for several stories.

Your arguments are misleading and obviously cannot be backed by observation and rigorous analysis. In many places making these types of arguments is called sophistry.
NzlG28B-R8Y

[LashL]

Compare and contrast Tony Szamboti's post from before Mackey answered him and after Mackey answered him.
Before:
The reality is that using the acceleration which occurred is not valid to use as a measure of the energy required, as it is not correlated to a calculated amount of energy which would be required to collapse the building. For instance, if demolition devices were used to remove resistance then the actual acceleration does not account for that.

After:
The reality is that using the resistance to the continuous acceleration which occurred is not valid to use as a measure of the energy required, as it is not correlated to a calculated amount of energy which would be required to collapse the building. For instance, if demolition devices were used to remove resistance then the actual resistance to free fall acceleration experienced does not account for that.

Before:
This is just one of several misleading type of arguments that you make, and it is hard for me to imagine that you don't know better.

After:
These are just some of several misleading type of arguments that you make, and it is hard for me to imagine that you don't know better if you are actually a mechanical engineer.


Tsk, tsk, Tony. It is dishonest to edit your post after someone has already answered it, without noting the changes that you made to it after the fact. You are in no position to lecture anyone about honesty.

[Slayhamlet]

Tsk, tsk, Tony. It is dishonest to edit your post after someone has already answered it, without noting the changes that you made to it after the fact. You are in no position to lecture anyone about honesty.

He edits out infractionable insults as well, but only after he knows the intended target has seen them. Troll behavior.

[Tony Szamboti]

He edits out infractionable insults as well, but only after he knows the intended target has seen them. Troll behavior.

I have to wonder here how you can jump to the conclusion that any posting and editing is premeditated and that you don't mention the possibility that maybe that is what I wanted to say emotionally and then thought better of it. However, you know the old saying "if the shoe fits,,,".

I am also baffled by this overused and inane "he's a troll" comment I see with many on Internet forums.

I had a public debate with Ryan Mackey and am involved in this debate heavily. So how does that equate to your silly troll category?

[Tony Szamboti]

Compare and contrast Tony Szamboti's post from before Mackey answered him and after Mackey answered him.
Before:


After:


Before:


After:



Tsk, tsk, Tony. It is dishonest to edit your post after someone has already answered it, without noting the changes that you made to it after the fact. You are in no position to lecture anyone about honesty.

Get real. With the speed with which some of my posts are responded to I don't even know they are being answered as I edited. There is nothing dishonest about it.

[TruthersLie]

She did.

And your before and after edits COMPLETELY change the meaning of the response. That is extremely REAL.

especially when you edit, and then do NOT add in a ETA.

Just like how twoofs operate... nice job. Keep up the good work

[Reactor drone]

Get real. With the speed with which some of my posts are responded to I don't even know they are being answered as I edited. There is nothing dishonest about it.

This one just said "Get real" initially.

[Tony Szamboti]

This one just said "Get real" initially.

To see that and respond that quickly you must be sitting watching the screen on this post.

What normal person would be doing that?

It almost sounds like it could be your job. Is it?

Why don't you people just let Ryan answer the questions without all of these inane comments and distractions?

[WildCat]

It almost sounds like it could be your job. Is it?
Yes Tony, that's it! You have the NWO so scared they assigned a person to follow your every post!

Christ on a stick truthers are a paranoid bunch.

[Grizzly Bear]

I'm only responding to this now because I've been clogged with work... so sorry if this is repeating anything somebody else covered...

I am simply saying that the tilt does not seem to occur until the upper block has already fallen straight down for several stories. You will have to pardon me if I don't accept the present analysis in the NIST report as it only consists of showing a still that is known to be two to three seconds into the collapse with an assertion then made that the upper section tilted and then dropped.

I also said in the debate that there needs to be a more thorough analysis of just when the tilt in WTC 1's upper block occurred. The devil is in the details and we need to know when it actually occurred. It is not proven that it occurred immediately.

In the Missing Jolt paper we calculate the energy dissipation and resultant velocity loss which should have occurred in the first collision between floors 97 and 99 by finding the elastic and plastic deformation and then buckling of the columns in just those two stories which are on either side of the collision.

I don't know if I've ever made this clear but the NIST report isn't required for every minutia of detail. From what I am reading on this forum the very video you had in your possession at the time of the debate even showed it, and I've seen videos that showed the motion of the tilt on both towers countless times. If as indicated by the posts I'm seeing subsequent to this one you really are in doubt about when the tilt took place... nothing I say is obviously going to convince you otherwise, and I'm not about to spend 30 minutes on a post explaining it to you that I can use this weekend to finish my design work. Just chuck that claim along with your statements about the failure mechanisms of the columns, the "banana peel plumes" and other crazy stuff I've read from your past activity. If you no longer support some of those pat claims... great... but it's the basic errors that have me concerned about your own credibility.

I'll post a response in length if after I see the debate I find anything interesting...

[Hokulele]

Talk about gibberish. Of course, you have no real analysis to back up anything you say concerning collapse initiation and propagation including whether the tilt occurred at onset or after the building dropped vertically for several stories.


What would induce a tilt to the upper section several stories after collapse initiation?

[dropzone]

I have tried a couple of multi-page threads and have found that I needn't bother with the posts from Page 2 to the last page.

[LashL]

Get real. With the speed with which some of my posts are responded to I don't even know they are being answered as I edited. There is nothing dishonest about it.

I do not believe you, Tony.

Your initial version of post 361 to which I referred was made at 9:23. R.Mackey responded with post 362 at 9:37, 14 minutes later, and there were no intervening posts. So, you cannot honestly claim that posts were coming fast and furious or that you didn't know that he had responded when you edited your post 361 (without noting your edits) at 9:47, a full 24 minutes after your initial version, and a full 10 minutes after R.Mackey's response in 362.

You changed your post substantially after it had been responded to, without even acknowledging the significant edits you made to it. I call that dishonest, and I call your lame claim above dishonest as well.

[tsig]

Yes Tony, that's it! You have the NWO so scared they assigned a person to follow your every post!

Christ on a stick truthers are a paranoid bunch.

Well since the whole TM is about feeling "special" having your own private shills seems to be a status symbol.

[alienentity]

I would bet a years pay that you can't get a scale model to initiate a global collapse with one wall bowed inward and then propagate without a jolt.

I suppose someday soon the requisite computing power will be available to fully model the tower collapses. Somebody with the time and interest will do the work perhaps, and the whole sordid thing will be simulated down to the last detail.

Prediction: It will be conclusively demonstrated thru detailed engineering models that NO explosives were necessary to bring the towers down in the manner observed.

There is no good reason to think so today, and there is no good reason to think there ever will be. There are lots of silly reasons to think so - in Tony's case, silly because there are other, completely plausible and reasonable scenarios (as described by Ryan, for example) which can account for the observed effects without invoking explosives.

Tony, I mean silly in the manner of 'frivolous'. Frivolous because you interpret every slight anomaly as a sign of explosives - this is not a serious approach from an engineer's standpoint. (Like a 'god in the gaps' creationist mindset) You presume explosives without proper grounds, and wrongfully exclude other, more plausible reasons.

There were no signs of high explosives on 9/11, any more than there were signs of faeries, dancing unicorns or other fanciful concoctions of the imagination. You need a reality check.

[alienentity]

I should add, Tony, that the majority of the world's citizens are going to leave you alone to your lonely fantasies, and move on. You are never going to 'prove', in engineering terms, what you are trying to prove. It's hopeless.

The engineering community at large is just not buying your ideas. And neither are we. As far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to your little clique with David Chandler, who believes in nanothermite column rockets and other fairytales; David Ray Griffin, with his faked phone calls and no Pentagon plane; Richard Gage with his cardboard boxes and 'freefall speed!!!!' exclamations. Great company. Just great.....

[bill smith]

Don't take it so personal. I was mostly sighing at Tony. Maybe you haven't followed the discussion, but he's had it explained to him, in person, solely for his benefit by numerous posters here. And he still doesn't get it.

Again, this is why "debating" the Truth Movement is futile. Their only weapon is dogged refusal to accept reality.

I welcome Tony to prove me wrong about that last statement by coming to terms with the tilt prior to collapse. Or the inward bowing several minutes before collapse. Most people, having seen actual photographs of these phenomena, don't need to be told a hundred times, but the Truth Movement is special in this respect.

Nothing personal taken- it's just that there is an orgnisation of almost 1,000 degreed and licenced architects and engineers who do not agree with you and your team here. I for one will align myself with them by virtue of their relatively greater knowledge and experience of structures. And of course by their sheer numbers. They do not agree at all with your analysis. That says it all. The day of listening to an isolated OCT speaker here and an OCT speaker there are over.

As regards the tilt check out this video in full screen. After it fully loads you can pull the slider back and forth and watch the potato-masher effect as the hat truss (with antenna handle attached) goes up and down, mashing as it goes. No tilt either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

[911kongen]

Nothing personal taken- it's just that there is an orgnisation of almost 1,000 degreed and licenced architects and engineers who do not agree with you and your team here. I for one will align myself with them by virtue of their relatively greater knowledge and experience of structures. And of course by their sheer numbers. They do not agree at all with your analysis. That says it all. The day of listening to an isolated OCT speaker here and an OCT speaker there are over.

As regards the tilt check out this video in full screen. After it fully loads you can pull the slider back and forth and watch the potato-masher effect as the hat truss (with antenna handle attached) goes up and down, mashing as it goes. No tilt either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

1000 degreed an licenced architects and engineers agrees with you? Thats probably something like 0, 0001 % of all experts! Why do you believe that smale numbers of people? They are most likely CRAZY!

[bill smith]

1000 degreed an licenced architects and engineers agrees with you? Thats probably something like 0, 0001 % of all experts! Why do you believe that smale numbers of people? They are most likely CRAZY!

I am only interested in organisations of engineers that have come out and had their members individually sign up in support of the OCT. You cannot speak for blocks of engineers who have never been individually asked. Well you can of course, but not with any credibility. All members of ae911truth.org by contrast have personally signed the petition for a new 9/11 enquiry despite any risks that might have entailed showing great moral courage.

[apathoid]

I am only interested in organisations of engineers that have come out and had their members individually sign up in support of the OCT. You cannot speak for blocks of engineers who have never been individually asked. Well you can of course, but not with any credibility. All members of ae911truth.org have personally signed the petition for a new 9/11 enquiry despite any risks that might have entailed showing great moral courage.


In case the idiocy of your argument eludes you, I'll point it out. You won't find a list of scientists who are on the "round earth" petition, nor will you find a list of engineers and astronauts on the "we did in fact go to the moon" petition. Additionally you are also not likely to find a list of marine biologists who've signed the "there is no such thing as Nessie" petition. Clear?

What we do have is dozens of peer reviewed studies in reputable science journals who "support the OCT". Do some research and you will find them.

[apathoid]

Nothing personal taken- it's just that there is an orgnisation of almost 1,000 degreed and licenced architects and engineers who do not agree with you and your team here.


Funny how they can't manage to get anything published that may change the status-quo. Ask your buddy Tony what the holdup is...

[Scott Sommers]

I am only interested in organisations of engineers that have come out and had their members individually sign up in support of the OCT. You cannot speak for blocks of engineers who have never been individually asked. Well you can of course, but not with any credibility. All members of ae911truth.org have personally signed the petition for a new 9/11 enquiry despite any risks that might have entailed showing great moral courage.

I certainly understand where you're coming from. Who would want to employ someone so easily labelled as nuts? Personally, if I were a building owner, and I found out that one of the engineers or designers had signed that petition, I'd insist they be fired from my project.

At the rate major figures in 911 Truth loose their jobs, this is a real issue. I'm surprised there isn't more discussion among your kind - really. People are fired now directly because they have at some time in their life advocated 911 conspiracy. So I'm surprised when I hardly hear a peep about this.

And while I'm on the topic, you claim there are hundreds of construction professionals on your AE petition list. Where are they when you guys are out on the streets? There are 911 Truth rallies that only 5 or 6 people attend. You should be working on getting out all these people who are so committed to your cause they would risk their livelihood to support it. Certainly such a person would be there to show public support, if he or she really exists.

[bill smith]

In case the idiocy of your argument eludes you, I'll point it out. You won't find a list of scientists who are on the "round earth" petition, nor will you find a list of engineers and astronauts on the "we did in fact go to the moon" petition. Additionally you are also not likely to find a list of marine biologists who've signed the "there is no such thing as Nessie" petition. Clear?

What we do have is dozens of peer reviewed studies in reputable science journals who "support the OCT". Do some research and you will find them.

They've all been studied and rejected I'm afraid and still we have this large and growing body of expertise telling us (and proving ) that the Towers were demolished ...all three. You guys just don't have any real numbers. I can almost name the few that there are, Bazant....Blanchard....Robertson...Bush...Cheney?

[apathoid]

They've all been studied and rejected I'm afraid and still we have this large and growing body of expertise telling us (and proving ) that the Towers were demolished ...all three. You guys just don't have any real numbers. I can almost name the few that there are, Bazant....Blanchard....Robertson...Bush...Cheney?


Somehow, I knew my point would sail right over your head without you even noticing it...way to come through.

[BigAl]

They've all been studied and rejected I'm afraid and still we have this large and growing body of expertise telling us (and proving ) that the Towers were demolished ...all three. You guys just don't have any real numbers. I can almost name the few that there are, Bazant....Blanchard....Robertson...Bush...Cheney?

You missed a few (maybe 50) papers that show your silly claims are wrong.


MORE: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4982224#post4982224

Performance based structural fire engineering for modern building design
Rini, D., Lamont, S. 2008 Proceedings of the 2008 Structures Congress - Structures Congress 2008: Crossing the Borders 314

Engineering perspective of the collapse of WTC-I
Irfanoglu, A., Hoffmann, C.M. 2008 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 22 (1),

Collapse of towers as applied to September 11 events
Cherepanov, G.P. 2008 Materials Science 44 (4), pp. 489-499

Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants in World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001
Kuligowski, E.D., Mileti, D.S. 2008 Fire Safety Journal

World Trade Center building disaster: Stimulus for innovations
Kodur, V.K.R. 2008 Indian Concrete Journal 82 (1), pp. 23-31

A collective undergraduate class project reconstructing the September 11, 2001 world trade center fire
Marshall, A., Quintiere, J. 2007 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

"A new era": The limits of engineering expertise in a post-9/11 world
Pfatteicher, S.K.A. 2007 International Symposium on Technology and Society, Proceedings, art. no. 4362228

Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis
Seffen, K.A. 2008 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134 (2), pp. 125-132

Scale modeling of the 96th floor of world trade center tower 1
Wang, M., Chang, P., Quintiere, J., Marshall, A. 2007 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 21 (6), pp. 414-421

Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the world trade center towers
Banovic, S.W., Siewert, T.A. 2007 Welding Journal (Miami, Fla) 86 (9), pp. 263-s-272-s

The collapse of the world trade center towers: A metallurgist's view
Gayle, F.W. 2007 MRS Bulletin 32 (9), pp. 710-716

Building code changes reflect world trade center investigation
Hansen, B. 2007 Civil Engineering 77 (9), pp. 22+24-25

Fire load in a steel building design
Razdolsky, L. 2008 Proceedings of the 4th International Structural Engineering and Construction Conference, ISEC-4 - Innovations in Structural Engineering and Construction 2, pp. 1163-1167

The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers
Gayle, F.W., Banovic, S.W., Foecke, T., Fields, R.J., Luecke, W.E., McColskey, J.D., McCown, C., Siewert, T.A. 2006 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 6 (5), pp. 5-8

Progressive collapse of structures: Annotated bibliography and comparison of codes and standards
Mohamed, O.A. 2006 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 20 (4), art. no. 001604QCF, pp. 418-425

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics
Baum, H.R., Rehm, R.G., Quintiere, J.G. 2005 Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30 II, pp. 2247-2254

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
Karim, M.R., Hoo Fatt, M.S. 2005 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 131 (10), pp. 1066-1072

High-fidelity simulation of large-scale structures
Hoffmann, C., Sameh, A., Grama, A. 2005 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3515 (II), pp. 664-671

Collapses of the world trade center towers
[No author name available] 2005 Indian Concrete Journal 79 (8), pp. 11-16

Industry updates: Fireproofing, staircases cited in World Trade Center report
[No author name available] 2005 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 5 (4), pp. 34

September 11 and fracture mechanics - A retrospective
Cherepanov, G.P. 2005 International Journal of Fracture 132 (2), pp. L25-L26

Structural responses of World Trade Center under aircraft attacks
Omika, Y., Fukuzawa, E., Koshika, N., Morikawa, H., Fukuda, R. 2005 Journal of Structural Engineering 131 (1), pp. 6-15

Impact of the 2001 World Trade Center attack on critical interdependent infrastructures
Mendonça, D., Lee II, E.E., Wallace, W.A. 2004 Conference Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 5, pp. 4053-4058

Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building
Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. 2004 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (10), pp. 1177-1187

Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse
Marjanishvili, S.M. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 79-85

Lessons learned on improving resistance of buildings to terrorist attacks
Corley, W.G. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 68-78

Anatomy of a disaster: A structural investigation of the World Trade Center collapses
Abboud, N., Levy, M., Tennant, D., Mould, J., Levine, H., King, S., Ekwueme, C., (...), Hart, G. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 360-370

World Trade Center disaster: Damage/debris assessment
Thater, G.G., Panariello, G.F., Cuoco, D.A. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 383-392

How did the WTC towers collapse: A new theory
Usmani, A.S., Chung, Y.C., Torero, J.L. 2003 Fire Safety Journal 38 (6), pp. 501-533

Microstructural analysis of the steels from Buildings 7, & 1 or 2 from the World Trade Center
Biederman, R.R., Sullivan, E.M., Sisson Jr., R.D., Vander Voort, G.F. 2003 Microscopy and Microanalysis 9 (SUPPL. 2), pp. 550-551

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Analysis of the thermal exposure in the impact areas of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks
Beyler, C., White, D., Peatross, M., Trellis, J., Li, S., Luers, A., Hopkins, D. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 371-382

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.

SOURCE: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4969965#post4969965

[TruthersLie]

Nothing personal taken- it's just that there is an orgnisation of almost 1,000 degreed and licenced architects and engineers who do not agree with you and your team here. I for one will align myself with them by virtue of their relatively greater knowledge and experience of structures. And of course by their sheer numbers. They do not agree at all with your analysis. That says it all. The day of listening to an isolated OCT speaker here and an OCT speaker there are over.

As regards the tilt check out this video in full screen. After it fully loads you can pull the slider back and forth and watch the potato-masher effect as the hat truss (with antenna handle attached) goes up and down, mashing as it goes. No tilt either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

I LOVE it when Billy girl here lies out of her ASS.

You will align yourself with them for their greater knowledge of structures? Is that your litmus test? Who has the greater knowledge of structures? Great.

The you will have no problem aligning yoursellf with the LEAD engineer for the towers Leslie Robertson. No person has a greater knowledge of that PARTICULAR structure.

How about aligning yourself with the Tall building association? Who say that twoofs are full of crap. They have a LOT more knowledge of structures than ANY of the twoofs.

I mean if I wanted a gym built or refurbished I might call gage. Or if I wanted to build roads or bridges I might just go after one of the AE twoofs.. but damn man..

On that note it is soooo funny watching you RUN away from Heiwa getting owned on the verinage techniques... but I guess that shows you how high rises are different than boats, eh twoof?

904 is not nearly a thousand.. unless you like rounding UP.

And it is 904 degreed OR licensed engineers... not 904 degreed AND licensed engineers.

why do you feel the need to lie about the size? Oh ... like all twoofs, got it.

[Mancman]

or that there were lots of little jolts, without explaining that the aggregate of these little jolts would have to cause the same velocity loss as one large one due to the same energy dissipation.


If you were travelling at 30mph in a car, and tapped the brake every few seconds you'd eventually achieve the same velocity loss as you would if you went straight into a brick wall. Would these events have comparable 'jolts'? Of course not, as the velocity changes are taking place over different lengths of time.

Mackey must have given you an absolute hiding on this show for you to be incessantly spouting this nonsense. You are throwing your toys out of the pram.

[jhunter1163]

And it is 904 degreed OR licensed engineers... not 904 degreed AND licensed engineers.

why do you feel the need to lie about the size? Oh ... like all twoofs, got it.

It appears to be impossible to get off the AE911 list once you're on it. I know that several of the listed "members" have tried to have their names removed, to no effect. Kinda like patriotsquestion911.com, who still have a number of dead people "supporting" their call for a new investigation.

[Scott Sommers]

Nothing personal taken- it's just that there is an orgnisation of almost 1,000 degreed and licenced architects and engineers who do not agree with you and your team here. I for one will align myself with them by virtue of their relatively greater knowledge and experience of structures. And of course by their sheer numbers. They do not agree at all with your analysis. That says it all. The day of listening to an isolated OCT speaker here and an OCT speaker there are over.

As regards the tilt check out this video in full screen. After it fully loads you can pull the slider back and forth and watch the potato-masher effect as the hat truss (with antenna handle attached) goes up and down, mashing as it goes. No tilt either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

You know the guy who posted this video is a no-planner who believes in energy weapons. From his Youtube bio (http://www.youtube.com/user/clauzii)
I DO believe that some new, yet unknown, weapon technoligy was used. A lot of smoke and blastwaves shows that. The smoke and the explosion patterns really look very odd with a lot of flashy stuff, zigzag-lines and circular patterns and such oddities. Also the (as seen from some angles) square blast waves looks odd, to say the least.

[bill smith]

You know the guy who posted this video is a no-planner who believes in energy weapons. From his Youtube bio (http://www.youtube.com/user/clauzii)

His father may have been a drunk who got several parking tickets too. lol

[Scott Sommers]

His father may have been a drunk who got several parking tickets too. lol

So what he believes is irrelevant? This certainly is consistant with Jane's position that evidence is unimportant. I am increasingly confused by what sort of facts you would find convincing. It almost leaves no choice but name calling.

[Tony Szamboti]

If you were travelling at 30mph in a car, and tapped the brake every few seconds you'd eventually achieve the same velocity loss as you would if you went straight into a brick wall. Would these events have comparable 'jolts'? Of course not, as the velocity changes are taking place over different lengths of time.

Mackey must have given you an absolute hiding on this show for you to be incessantly spouting this nonsense. You are throwing your toys out of the pram.

You apparently don't read everything that is said. I have explained repeatedly that a series of smaller jolts would have the same effect as a large single jolt in causing a velocity drop, due to it's having the same energy dissipation requirements to deform and buckle the columns on either side of the collisions. The energy dissipation should have caused a 76% velocity drop based on just these minimum dissipation requirements. We looked for a velocity drop over a significant period of time. There was none. The upper block continuously accelerates at about 70% of gravity. The 30% of gravity resistance seen by the upper block is equal to about 10% of the strength of the columns below. Something was removing the strength of 90% of the columns. I explained this during the debate also.

Mackey gave nobody a hiding except in his own mind maybe. He is full of bluff and bluster but his actual arguments on collapse intitiation and propagation consist of nothing but grand scale sophistries which are defined below.


soph⋅ist⋅ry
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[bill smith]

So what he believes is irrelevant? This certainly is consistant with Jane's position that evidence is unimportant. I am increasingly confused by what sort of facts you would find convincing. It almost leaves no choice but name calling.

That is the normal style on the jref debunking side so why deviate ? Did you find the potato-masher analogy appropriate ? I did. Did you notice the antenna falling into the building before there was any other movement ? What did this mean for the core columns underneath ? Do you think the falling hat truss may have pulled in the walls ? How could the hat truss fall without explosives ?- it was built into the top number of floors, two of which were mechanical floors. Did you see how the top block became compressed into two-thirds it's priginal size before the lower portion began to collapse ? Does that mean that it was well into disintegration prior to contact ? Loose rubble in other words ? Fascinating stuff. (No tilt either as you may have noticed)

[WildCat]

You apparently don't read everything that is said. I have explained repeatedly that a series of smaller jolts would have the same effect as a large single jolt in causing a velocity drop, due to it's having the same energy dissipation requirements to deform and buckle the columns on either side of the collisions. The energy dissipation should have caused a 76% velocity drop based on just these minimum dissipation requirements. We looked for a velocity drop over a significant period of time. There was none. The upper block continuously accelerates at about 70% of gravity. The 30% of gravity resistance seen by the upper block is equal to about 10% of the strength of the columns below. Something was removing the strength of 90% of the columns. I explained this during the debate also.

Mackey gave nobody a hiding except in his own mind maybe. He is full of bluff and bluster but his actual arguments on collapse intitiation and propagation consist of nothing but grand scale sophistries which are defined below.


soph⋅ist⋅ry
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony, when will you take your amazing research and submit it to an actual peer-reviewed engineering journal? I mean, your reaoning is so flawless it would be a slam-dunk, yes?

Or do you think the truth movement will be the first group ever to cause a paradigm shift in scientific thinking via youtube and internet forums? :rolleyes:

[Grizzly Bear]

Off-axis loading of the columns and changes in their geometry. The explanation does not get much simpler than that. Columns perform optimally when their loads are axially aligned. when the collapses began, they weren't. You cannot ignore that, bvut some people forcibly do so, for reasons unknown...

[Tony Szamboti]

Nothing personal taken- it's just that there is an orgnisation of almost 1,000 degreed and licenced architects and engineers who do not agree with you and your team here. I for one will align myself with them by virtue of their relatively greater knowledge and experience of structures. And of course by their sheer numbers. They do not agree at all with your analysis. That says it all. The day of listening to an isolated OCT speaker here and an OCT speaker there are over.

As regards the tilt check out this video in full screen. After it fully loads you can pull the slider back and forth and watch the potato-masher effect as the hat truss (with antenna handle attached) goes up and down, mashing as it goes. No tilt either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

Ryan Mackey actually says he sees an immediate tilt to the south of the building itself in the video you link to here, and then has the audacity to say others are denying reality if they claim they don't see it.

Of course there are others here who say it can't be discerned but offer no credible reason for this.

I believe the immediate tilt to the south is nothing but a bluff which cannot be substantiated by those using it to argue that a jolt would not be expected. The additional bluff they use, which they also don't substantiate, is that the tilt would have caused a series of separate jolts which aren't discernable. This argument fails since the aggregate energy dissipation would cause the same velocity loss as one large jolt. There was no velocity loss in the fall of the upper block of WTC 1. It continually accelerated at 70% of gravity, and no argument put forth so far, for this acceleration having a natural cause, has been satisfactorily explained with analysis.

[bill smith]

Off-axis loading of the columns and changes in their geometry. The explanation does not get much simpler than that. Columns perform optimally when their loads are axially aligned. when the collapses began, they weren't. You cannot ignore that, bvut some people forcibly do so, for reasons unknown...

In he clear video I posted can you show where the upper block shifted out of alignment with the lower block to allow the columns in turn to become misaligned ? If not your argument is dead in the water.

[alienentity]

...I have explained repeatedly that a series of smaller jolts would have the same effect as a large single jolt in causing a velocity drop, due to it's having the same energy dissipation requirements to deform and buckle the columns on either side of the collisions

Mackey is simply working with the observed fact that the columns bowed asymmetrically, causing the tilt, and thus offsetting the columns on either side of the collisions.

That is precisely why your argument is fallacious and fails. And precisely why your argument is pure sophistry.


soph⋅ist⋅ry
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.

Let me add another definition for you:

Pwned
-Derived from the verb 'to own'
1. The term implies domination or humiliation of a rival, used primarily in the Internet gaming culture to taunt an opponent who has just been soundly defeated

[Mr.Herbert]

Tony.. LashL caught you editing your posts after responses, then she caught you lying about the timing of them.

No comment, liar?

[Furcifer]

Don't take it so personal. I was mostly sighing at Tony. Maybe you haven't followed the discussion, but he's had it explained to him, in person, solely for his benefit by numerous posters here. And he still doesn't get it.

Again, this is why "debating" the Truth Movement is futile. Their only weapon is dogged refusal to accept reality.


Well it's pretty simple. If he doesn't get it it's only because he doesn't want to get it. I've read Architects post, yours and of course Newtons Bit's blog. None of it is overly technical, it's pretty much basic column analysis. And you're absolutely right, Tony is using first principles and mistaking design factor for the DCR.

The first principles approach is useless. You don't know the end-fixity and slenderness ratio of all the columns in the core. The best thing to do is work with the known values and plug them into modelling software. Exactly like was done.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony.. LashL caught you editing your posts after responses, then she caught you lying about the timing of them.

No comment, liar?

Get lost. You are just trying to start trouble because your side has no argument here.

[Mr.Herbert]

Get lost. You are just trying to start trouble because your side has no argument here.

No, liar, I am trying to get the truth out of you.

Why did you edit your posts after Ryan responded to you?

[Tony Szamboti]

Mackey is simply working with the observed fact that the columns bowed asymmetrically, causing the tilt, and thus offsetting the columns on either side of the collisions.

That is precisely why your argument is fallacious and fails. And precisely why your argument is pure sophistry.


soph⋅ist⋅ry
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.

Let me add another definition for you:

Pwned
-Derived from the verb 'to own'
1. The term implies domination or humiliation of a rival, used primarily in the Internet gaming culture to taunt an opponent who has just been soundly defeated

Why don't you try a little experiment to see some things for yourself? Take any square structure which is stable vertically and has it's sides supported from side to side on the inside and remove one wall. See if it overturns. Let me know how it goes.

[DGM]

Why don't you try a little experiment to see some things for yourself? Take any square structure which is stable vertically and has it's sides supported from side to side on the inside and remove one wall. See if it overturns. Let me know how it goes.
Tony, please stop with these "experiments". Their foolish and you know it.

[alienentity]

Why don't you try a little experiment to see some things for yourself? Take any square structure which is stable vertically and has it's sides supported from side to side on the inside and remove one wall. See if it overturns. Let me know how it goes.

Why would I do that? It doesn't model what happened.

Neither do Richard Gage's cardboard boxes.

What's the point, unless you're determined to get the wrong result?

[bill smith]

Ryan Mackey actually says he sees an immediate tilt to the south of the building itself in the video you link to here, and then has the audacity to say others are denying reality if they claim they don't see it.

Of course there are others here who say it can't be discerned but offer no credible reason for this.

I believe the immediate tilt to the south is nothing but a bluff which cannot be substantiated by those using it to argue that a jolt would not be expected. The additional bluff they use, which they also don't substantiate, is that the tilt would have caused a series of separate jolts which aren't discernable. This argument fails since the aggregate energy dissipation would cause the same velocity loss as one large jolt. There was no velocity loss in the fall of the upper block of WTC 1. It continually accelerated at 70% of gravity, and no argument put forth so far, for this acceleration having a natural cause, has been satisfactorily explained with analysis.

In ny experience anything RM utters about 9/11 should be taken with a grain of salt. They cannot show a tilt because there is none to show. They can make ludicrous statements saying they see one till the cows come home. The video itself puts the lie to that.

[Grizzly Bear]

Why don't you try a little experiment to see some things for yourself? Take any square structure which is stable vertically and has it's sides supported from side to side on the inside and remove one wall. See if it overturns. Let me know how it goes.
Allow me to suggest some revisions. One that has lost significant structural integrity on one side due to impact, and significantly weakened on the other where secondary effects have weakened the structure and induced changes in the geometry (Creep buckling). And a model which is scaled properly to model it with reasonable results.

[Scott Sommers]

Did you notice no sign of controlled demolition? That's why the person who posted it believes in space-based energy weapons. How about you? Are you a supporter of Dr. Judy Wood Ph.D.?

[rwguinn]

Just for grins:
3 each 5 g "jolts" of, say, 100 lb:
Force (Max)=500 lbf
1 each 15 g "jolt" on the same 100 lb.
Force (Max)=1500lb

If your design capability is 300 lb (SF=3), which one of the above scenarios fails the structure?
This is a trick question

[Tony Szamboti]

Allow me to suggest some revisions. One that has lost significant structural integrity on one side due to impact, and significantly weakened on the other where secondary effects have weakened the structure and induced changes in the geometry (Creep buckling). And a model which is scaled properly to model it with reasonable results.

Fine, you can replicate the aircraft impact damage of 15 to 20% of the columns. Don't forget the spandrels redistribute load on the impact side though.

As for creep buckling the NIST does not have sufficient temperatures to cause much of that in the core. But if you want you can remove much of the core to replicate that claim also.

Let me know if the structure overturns even with these modifications.

[BasqueArch]

Ryan Mackey actually says he sees an immediate tilt to the south of the building itself in the video you link to here, and then has the audacity to say others are denying reality if they claim they don't see it.

Of course there are others here who say it can't be discerned but offer no credible reason for this.

I believe the immediate tilt to the south is nothing but a bluff which cannot be substantiated by those using it to argue that a jolt would not be expected. The additional bluff they use, which they also don't substantiate, is that the tilt would have caused a series of separate jolts which aren't discernable. This argument fails since the aggregate energy dissipation would cause the same velocity loss as one large jolt. There was no velocity loss in the fall of the upper block of WTC 1. It continually accelerated at 70% of gravity, and no argument put forth so far, for this acceleration having a natural cause, has been satisfactorily explained with analysis.


1 ) Here it is:

WTC 1 shot from the west showing tilt to south at collapse start.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHCeRYreMp8

2) Tilt = The columns above hit the slab below not the columns below = "no jolt" Read post #366.

How can you be so wrong so often and not be embarrassed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Churchill

[BasqueArch]

1000 degreed an licenced architects and engineers agrees with you? Thats probably something like 0, 0001 % of all experts! Why do you believe that smale numbers of people? They are most likely CRAZY!

I’m not surprised.
Half of all architects and engineers are below average. You don’t see top professionals believe this TM trash. On Gage’s muddleheaded web site the roster is arranged alphabetically - by first names.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into - Swift

[bill smith]

1 ) Here it is:

WTC 1 shot from the west showing tilt to south at collapse start.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHCeRYreMp8

2) Tilt = The columns above hit the slab below not the columns below = "no jolt" Read post #366.

How can you be so wrong so often and not be embarrassed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Churchill

Garbage as regards any tilt. But the crumbling, disintegrating look fits very well with only loose rubble having hit the lower 90% of the building I must say. Thanks for the clip.

[DGM]

Garbage as regards any tilt. But the crumbling, disintegrating look fits very well with only loose rubble having hit the lower 90% of the building I must say. Thanks for the clip.
Ton of bricks or a ton of feathers.:p

[tsig]

Why don't you try a little experiment to see some things for yourself? Take any square structure which is stable vertically and has it's sides supported from side to side on the inside and remove one wall. See if it overturns. Let me know how it goes.

Are cardboard boxes OK?

Oops when I splashed kerosene on them and set them on fire they burned to the ground.

[Tony Szamboti]

Just for grins:
3 each 5 g "jolts" of, say, 100 lb:
Force (Max)=500 lbf
1 each 15 g "jolt" on the same 100 lb.
Force (Max)=1500lb

If your design capability is 300 lb (SF=3), which one of the above scenarios fails the structure?
This is a trick question

I think you are misinterpreting the argument made by those who claim that a series of smaller jolts would not be discernable.

In your terms their argument would be that if there were three columns which could all take a 500 lb. load under a 100 lb. plate then there could have been three separate 5 g jolts due to a tilt to take out the columns individually. They then say that this would not be discernable as opposed to a single 15g jolt taking out all three columns at once. The problem with their argument is that the energy dissipation and velocity loss is the same whether it is done cumulatively in a short time frame or all at once.

We looked for the velocity loss which was correlatable to a required energy dissipation in the Missing Jolt paper. It wasn't there. The upper block of WTC 1 never had a velocity loss. It continuously accelerated and gained velocity as though 90% of the column strength below had vanished.

[R.Mackey]

Why is anyone bringing up Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth?

Tony, as you may be aware, is a member of that group, and indeed one of the more prominent members. His name appears on their arrogant letter to NIST regarding WTC 7, for instance (the one in which among other things they claim that nanothermite is not an explosive, and where they focus on BBC "foreknowledge" as an important topic), and he is one of the very few who has had training in a relevant field. So the existence of this group adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. If they have an argument to make, it is safe to assume that Tony is capable of articulating it.

Of course, this hasn't happened. Indeed, his bumbling errors and rejection of reality only serve to cast further doubt on AE911T as a valid authority.

Mackey gave nobody a hiding except in his own mind maybe. He is full of bluff and bluster but his actual arguments on collapse intitiation and propagation consist of nothing but grand scale sophistries which are defined below.

I never heard of "giving a hiding" before (British witticism?), but this is quite clearly an unsophisticated ad Hominem argument. It's pathetic.

One more time, until you accept the following:

That you lied about the Factor of Safety in the core being 3.0
That the south wall visibly deformed for several minutes before collapse
That the core collapse initiated with south wall buckling, followed by a tilt towards the south wall, before descent of the upper stories

... there is no point to speaking to you whatsoever. Some ground rules must be observed, and one of them is acceptance of plain, obvious, and well-documented reality.

Let me know when you accept the above, otherwise, I've wasted far too much time talking to the obstinate.

[bill smith]

Did you notice no sign of controlled demolition? That's why the person who posted it believes in space-based energy weapons. How about you? Are you a supporter of Dr. Judy Wood Ph.D.?

What do you think the antenna falling into the building before any other movement occurred was ? Do you think that happened naturally ? If Judy has something to add I am all ears. Nothing is off the table .

[R.Mackey]

As for creep buckling the NIST does not have sufficient temperatures to cause much of that in the core. But if you want you can remove much of the core to replicate that claim also.

Oh, wait, new lies to add to the pile. Creep buckling can set in as low as 250oC, and NIST's temperature predictions are considerably above this in most of the affected regions.

Now cue the tired argument about "NIST never recovered steel above blah blah blah..."

It just never ends with these people, does it?

[BasqueArch]

Why is anyone bringing up Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth?

Oops, sorry
Low hanging fruit
No not him

[Hokulele]

The problem with their argument is that the energy dissipation and velocity loss is the same whether it is done cumulatively in a short time frame or all at once.


Wait, velocity loss?

1st derivative, 2nd derivative, 3rd derivative...

Hm.

[alienentity]

We looked for the velocity loss which was correlatable to a required energy dissipation in the Missing Jolt paper. It wasn't there. The upper block of WTC 1 never had a velocity loss. It continuously accelerated and gained velocity as though 90% of the column strength below had vanished.

Almost as though your theory was incorrect...hmmm, ya think? Maybe the column strength is irrelevant when the impacts are not column-to-column. Maybe if you paid attention to the videos and documented bowing, you'd recognize this.

Viscoplastic buckling would occur at temps as low as 150◦ C so long as affected columns were experiencing enough stress. Maybe if you paid attention to these facts you'd come to the correct conclusions.

It's a helluva lot to ask a truther to pay attention to the facts, but we can try.

I doubt you can do it though. Your need to believe in your delusion prevents this.

[GlennB]

Wait, velocity loss?

1st derivative, 2nd derivative, 3rd derivative...

Hm.

Is Szamboti confusing 'reduced acceleration' with 'velocity loss' ? Surely not ?
Now, pulling away up a hill my car might experience 'reduced acceleration' compared with similar gas on flat ground. But not 'velocity loss'. That would be an actual slowing down, according to my 'A level' physics. There is no 'jolt' when I fail to accelerate to the max uphill.

I wonder if he'll have edited his post by the time our little exchange hits the waiting world?

[deep]

It appears to be impossible to get off the AE911 list once you're on it. I know that several of the listed "members" have tried to have their names removed, to no effect.


Which members are you referring to? Please provide names.

[TruthersLie]

Why don't you try a little experiment to see some things for yourself? Take any square structure which is stable vertically and has it's sides supported from side to side on the inside and remove one wall. See if it overturns. Let me know how it goes.

Ok.
jNWe1b_2yE4

It looks like it rolled over... wowsers... that would be overturning.

[funk de fino]

Good gosh, the evidence that Tony Szamboti is a liar, keeps on flooding in.

[alienentity]

Which members are you referring to? Please provide names.

How many of them are licensed engineers and architects? Does it matter?

[Mr.Herbert]

Which members are you referring to? Please provide names.

My fake name I created is still on his home page.

Cameron Porter PHD.
(Brady Bunch doctors)

[Furcifer]

My fake name I created is still on his home page.

Cameron Porter PHD.
(Brady Bunch doctors)

lol. memories. Kodos and Kang were short lived members.

[deep]

My fake name I created is still on his home page.

Cameron Porter PHD.
(Brady Bunch doctors)


Yes - we've been over this. The name is visible in an old flash movie - it does not appear in the membership list.

[Mr.Herbert]

IIRC Marion Ross played the part of the doctor. (Mrs. Cunningham) .....

[TruthersLie]

of course at one point their esteemed engineers included
george jetson
fred flintstone
and even barney rubble.

So I do have to question the veracity (and authenticity) of the vast majority of their membership.

At the same time DEEP, I ask you what kind of movement LIES about the qualifications of the people who join it? there are NOT 904 degreed AND licensed engineers and architects who are part of the movement.

Even if the # is 904 people who are degreed OR licensed, that is VASTLY different.

Of course with normal truther reading comprehension, I think that is overlooked, after all it isn't a BIG thing... AND/OR... My ESL students get them mixed up all the time (with gender pronouns... I can't tell you how many times I have heard, My father, she is very handsome....

[CompusMentus]

I never heard of "giving a hiding" before (British witticism?), but this is quite clearly an unsophisticated ad Hominem argument. It's pathetic.



Giving someone a "hiding" is usually used here in the context of beating somebody up, eg in "she gave him a good hiding". Perhaps derives from "tanned his hide"

Poor Tony being skinned alive here is a good living embodiment of the metaphor methinks.


Compus

[Newtons Bit]

How many of them are licensed engineers and architects? Does it matter?

It doesn't matter. AE911 is just one big giant attempt at an appeal to authority. Speaking as one of many engineers on the planet, I'm not swayed by a group of engineers claiming something. What I want to see is research and reason backing up their claims.

So far the only attempts at mathematical reasoning from them (truther engineers) have involved gross misconceptions of physics and/or engineering.

[fitzgibbon]

NB

I expect that working Architects and Engineers looking for substantive reasoning from AE911Truth is kind of like television professionals looking for substantive reasoning from Ace Baker.

[Newtons Bit]

NB

I expect that working Architects and Engineers looking for substantive reasoning from AE911Truth is kind of like television professionals looking for substantive reasoning from Ace Baker.

We're definitely not holding our breath. If it could be done, it would have already been done.

[fitzgibbon]

Pomeroo has the key shortciruiting to Ace Baker's video screeds should he ever feel the need to trot it out. :D

[R.Mackey]

Again, this is not an AE911T thread. If you want to argue about their stupid membership or Richard Gage and his Falling Cardboard Tour or what have you, do it elsewhere.

As I've already explained, the existence of the group has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion:

Tony, as you may be aware, is a member of that group, and indeed one of the more prominent members. His name appears on their arrogant letter to NIST regarding WTC 7, for instance (the one in which among other things they claim that nanothermite is not an explosive, and where they focus on BBC "foreknowledge" as an important topic), and he is one of the very few who has had training in a relevant field. So the existence of this group adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. If they have an argument to make, it is safe to assume that Tony is capable of articulating it.

Of course, this hasn't happened. Indeed, his bumbling errors and rejection of reality only serve to cast further doubt on AE911T as a valid authority.

[Edx]

Just to be sure, did the debate take place?

If so, where can we watch it?

[R.Mackey]

Patience. Give it a week or two.

[Edx]

Patience.

...is not my virtue. :)

[Mr.D]

Patience.

...is not my virtue. :)

If patience is a virtue,
virtue is it's own reward,
and good things (like rewards) come to those who wait ...


Then patience will come to those who wait.

[TruthersLie]

no. patience is a virgin...
her sister charity on the other hand isn't.

[Dave Rogers]

This little manipulation sounds impressive at first unless one is keen enough to realize that the building structure was designed to hold several times 100% of the potential energy.

Good God, Tony, can you honestly hold your head up in public after uttering gibberish like this? Do you honestly not understand the difference between force and energy? I'd expect this from the vast majority of the truth movement, but you normally give the impression that you actually understand some physics. The structure was designed to exert a maximum upward force greater than 100% of its weight at any point. If a structural engineer were to design a building that could absorb more than 100% of its own gravitational potential energy before collapsing, it wouldn't be a building, it'd be a slab.

Dave

[Bad_Doggie]

What you've just witnessed is why debating the Truth Movement is a waste of time.

The producer informed me that he should be able to salvage the second show, despite my equipment failures. Probably another week or so until they're done. I'll keep you posted.

I'll also open up a new thread, when the time comes, for future ideas and desires. Personally, I am rather disgusted with how direct debate turns out and would rather do more educational shows, but I will be interested to see what you all think. But that will be another thread.

Ok I’m jumping the gun a bit and should wait for the new thread, but I’ve gotta say:

I think that you are right, direct debate achieves nothing positive where the TM is concerned. It only gives them a platform to further publicise their self serving issues. By debating them you are, in effect, assisting them. Starved of the publicity they crave and need to keep their story and various money making projects alive, they will continue to wilt.

The educational shows are always informative, accessible and make the events of 9/11 understandable. But, I would go further and say that they also spark an interest in Science, Engineering and how scientists and engineers operate in the real world. It is quite rare to see Scientists and Engineers in action. Although an Engineer my training is in an unrelated field and whilst following the debates, principally here on JREF, I have learn and re-learn many things. The important, and perhaps difficult thing is to bring this opportunity to the “masses” in an accessible way.

Hard core Truthers will never allow education to impinge on their fantasies. Those that are genuinely seeking answers, often as an artefact of running into trutherism, need these resources available to them. The white paper and the modelling shows go a long way in this direction.

Woof!

[Scott_Milner]

Ryan Mackey actually says he sees an immediate tilt to the south of the building itself in the video you link to here, and then has the audacity to say others are denying reality if they claim they don't see it.

Of course there are others here who say it can't be discerned but offer no credible reason for this.

I believe the immediate tilt to the south is nothing but a bluff which cannot be substantiated by those using it to argue that a jolt would not be expected. The additional bluff they use, which they also don't substantiate, is that the tilt would have caused a series of separate jolts which aren't discernable. This argument fails since the aggregate energy dissipation would cause the same velocity loss as one large jolt. There was no velocity loss in the fall of the upper block of WTC 1. It continually accelerated at 70% of gravity, and no argument put forth so far, for this acceleration having a natural cause, has been satisfactorily explained with analysis.


I find it strange that none of them can explain how the upper section stops tilting, and what force caused the upper section from falling over. These people also forget most of the core columns were still intact.

[twinstead]

I find it strange that none of them can explain how the upper section stops tilting, and what force caused the upper section from falling over. These people also forget most of the core columns were still intact.

You have it totally opposite. In order for it have "fallen over", there would have needed to be more force acting to send topple it than gravity was pushing down on it. I've seen no video or any other images that show the top portion in any position that would have made gravity do anything but push straight down on it.

The floor directly below it could never support the entire top portion, so it failed. as did the next floor, as did the next. Until there was no building left.

[funk de fino]

I find it strange that none of them can explain how the upper section stops tilting, and what force caused the upper section from falling over. These people also forget most of the core columns were still intact.

You corrected for spelling but the sentence still makes no sense.

You told a little lie also.

[BasqueArch]

- News Flash –


Twin Towers' Missing Jolts Discovered Behind Szamboti's Basement False Bookcase Doors.

[Dave Rogers]

I find it strange that none of them can explain how the upper section stops tilting, and what force caused the upper section from falling over.

What's the basis for your belief that the upper sections stopped tilting? We see on videos a rotation of the upper block that continues until it disappears in the dust clouds, and certainly at no time does it show any signs of any rotation in the opposite direction.

And since "falling over" would consist of a composite motion, in which the upper block rotated and its centre of gravity moved laterally, there was no need for any force to prevent the upper section from falling over. The rotation was observed, and there was no force to move the centre of gravity laterally. In effect, the "force" that stopped the upper section from falling over is Newton's First Law.

These people also forget most of the core columns were still intact.

When, exactly? We know that some, but not all, survived up to about the 50th or 60th floor, well below the point of collapse initiation, for a few seconds after the main collapse. We also know that they all failed within about 25-30 seconds of collapse initiation. Is that what you're talking about, or are you making a claim about some time between the airliner impact and the main collapse? If the latter, how do you know what was intact when, given that there was a building in the way of you seeing it?

Dave

[TruthersLie]

I find it strange that none of them can explain how the upper section stops tilting, and what force caused the upper section from falling over. These people also forget most of the core columns were still intact.

You are making some basic mistakes.

1. the towers were not a solid object like a tree for example. The towers were hundreds of thousands of interconnected parts, which when standing are stable, but once the collapse started reverted to hundreds of thousands of individual parts all of which could snap, buckle or break.

2. The core did not fall directly on other core columns. Because it wasn't a straight collapse core column on core column this is irrelevant.

But lets take that idea and run with it. EVEN IF IT WAS core on core (sounds like bad engineering porn), Bazant already SHOWED (repeatedly)
that there was not enough to arrest the collapse. As such it is irrelevant.

Now lets look at other collapses where it is CORE ON CORE
NwFHEoiUZ7o

So even with core on core gravity driven collapses, you still end up with the building collapsing. (bad analogy because they are a different construction, which I understand, but it is still valid because it is STILL core on core. In the verinage technique does have core on core and a noticable JOLT.)

ETA: 3. Why does the upper section stop tilting? This has been explained MULTIPLE TIMES. So please don't say no one has answerd this... You may not understand it, but it has been explained. This is simple physics. Why is the upper part tilitng? Because the lower section in a portion of the towers has given way. The part that is STILL standing right after the start of the collapes becomes a fulcrum and the top tilts. Now when the collapse gets to the point where the fulcrum is, it collapses and the tilt stops because it no longer has a fulcrum and is being pulled straight down by gravity.

[Dave Rogers]

Ryan Mackey actually says he sees an immediate tilt to the south of the building itself in the video you link to here, and then has the audacity to say others are denying reality if they claim they don't see it.

Of course there are others here who say it can't be discerned but offer no credible reason for this.

I believe the immediate tilt to the south is nothing but a bluff which cannot be substantiated by those using it to argue that a jolt would not be expected.

Let's take a look at the initial movement of the upper block.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_147644ac9bc9ba5dd1.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17748)

There's a clearly visible tilt in the second frame, before the topmost corner of the roofline has moved more than a single pixel (less than a quarter of a storey). I've measured it at about two degrees.

The additional bluff they use, which they also don't substantiate, is that the tilt would have caused a series of separate jolts which aren't discernable. This argument fails since the aggregate energy dissipation would cause the same velocity loss as one large jolt. There was no velocity loss in the fall of the upper block of WTC 1. It continually accelerated at 70% of gravity, and no argument put forth so far, for this acceleration having a natural cause, has been satisfactorily explained with analysis.

This has been explained to you so many times that I don't for one moment believe that you're going to get it; however, the above argument is completely physically absurd. If the acceleration is 70% of gravity, then the missing 30% is the velocity loss you're looking for. There's a force downwards of mg on the upper block, and a time-averaged upward force of 0.3mg, giving a resultant downward force of 0.7mg and a downward acceleration of 0.7G, in the most basic possible example of vector arithmetic. The time-averaged upward force includes the force exerted upwards by the columns as they collapse.

Your missing jolt and the missing 30% of gravitational acceleration are one and the same, and everyone can see that but you.

Dave

[R.Mackey]

I find it strange that none of them can explain how the upper section stops tilting, and what force caused the upper section from falling over. These people also forget most of the core columns were still intact.


Total balderdash. Apparently I have to repeat (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5102308#post5102308) myself on this topic every month or two.

[alienentity]

I hope this is still on topic, but further to Dave's last post, I also fail to see how the two main truther arguments can coexist:

1) That any collapse very close to freefall speed indicates explosive demolition
2) That when the collapse proceeds significantly slower than freefall speed (Tony's 70% figure, for example, and Chandler's 64%), this also indicates explosive demolition!!

I can't imagine these arguments would fool many wise observers, but I suppose they get the job done when foisted on the gullible and uninformed.

[BasqueArch]

I hope this is still on topic, but further to Dave's last post, I also fail to see how the two main truther arguments can coexist:

1) That any collapse very close to freefall speed indicates explosive demolition
2) That when the collapse proceeds significantly slower than freefall speed (Tony's 70% figure, for example, and Chandler's 64%), this also indicates explosive demolition!!

I can't imagine these arguments would fool many wise observers, but I suppose they get the job done when foisted on the gullible and uninformed.

Alien
I would have said you must be crazy mistaken, but here it is:
Can anyone make sense of this

"Downward Acceleration of the North Tower
The roofline of WTC1 (The North Tower) begins dropping with sudden onset and accelerates uniformly downward at about 64% of the acceleration of gravity (g) until it disappears into the dust. This means it is meeting resistance equal to about 36% of its weight. The implication of this, however, is that the force it is exerting on the lower section of the building is also only 36% of the weight of the falling section. This is much less than the force it would exert if it were at rest. The acceleration data thus prove that the falling top section of the building cannot be responsible for the destruction of the lower section of the building.
[I want to acknowledge the work of Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti who have been engaged in similar measurements by other means and have reached similar conclusions.]
David Chandler

http://www.911speakout.org/ (near bottom of page)

[R.Mackey]

This is a persistent delusion of the Truth Movement. I address this in Appendix B in my whitepaper. The first known sightings of this brand of stupidity are from Hoffman and Heikki Kurttila.

What they fail to understand is that the strength of the structure, the opposing force, is not a constant as the structure is destroyed. Work = Force times Distance. For some of that distance, possibly, the force is equal to the strength, but for most of the distance pieces are broken or buckled or not in contact, and the force drops to zero.

Initially I never would have guessed that the Truth Movement really is this stupid, but that's what the evidence supports.

[Newtons Bit]

Alien
I would have said you must be crazy mistaken, but here it is:
Can anyone make sense of this

"Downward Acceleration of the North Tower
The roofline of WTC1 (The North Tower) begins dropping with sudden onset and accelerates uniformly downward at about 64% of the acceleration of gravity (g) until it disappears into the dust. This means it is meeting resistance equal to about 36% of its weight. The implication of this, however, is that the force it is exerting on the lower section of the building is also only 36% of the weight of the falling section. This is much less than the force it would exert if it were at rest. The acceleration data thus prove that the falling top section of the building cannot be responsible for the destruction of the lower section of the building.
[I want to acknowledge the work of Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti who have been engaged in similar measurements by other means and have reached similar conclusions.]
David Chandler

http://www.911speakout.org/ (near bottom of page)

The truly bizarre thing about Chandler's statement is that, if taken at face value, it states that no building can ever collapse from its own weight ever. We already know this to be false: see Ronan's Point or Bailey's Crossroads. Both of those buildings collapses at a rate somewhere between 0g and 1g. Which means that the average force exerted on the lower structure is somewhere between 0% and 100% of the at rest weight.

What I think he, and other truthers miss, is that this is a measurement of average force, not of peak force. It is more probable that the resisting elements near the collapse are at near peak static capacity for brief periods of time, and then break and resist nothing at all. And given the fact that the vertical force resisting elements aren't all loaded at the same time, as the upper block is tilted and the damage in the upper block is unequal, it is equally probable that this force does actually appear as an average rather than a jolt (Tony Szamboti's problem).

It is also worth pointing out that the once the load paths change, and the columns aren't axially loading the columns below and instead are impact floors slabs, all bets are off.

Feel free to change more words of "more probable" with "almost definitely so".

[W.D.Clinger]

Can anyone make sense of this

"Downward Acceleration of the North Tower
The roofline of WTC1 (The North Tower) begins dropping with sudden onset and accelerates uniformly downward at about 64% of the acceleration of gravity (g) until it disappears into the dust. This means it is meeting resistance equal to about 36% of its weight. The implication of this, however, is that the force it is exerting on the lower section of the building is also only 36% of the weight of the falling section. This is much less than the force it would exert if it were at rest. The acceleration data thus prove that the falling top section of the building cannot be responsible for the destruction of the lower section of the building.
[I want to acknowledge the work of Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti who have been engaged in similar measurements by other means and have reached similar conclusions.]
David Chandler

No. It makes no sense.

It makes sense until "The implication of this, however, is that the force it is exerting on the lower section of the building is also only 36% of the weight of the falling section." It looks to me as though Chandler is trying to apply Newton's third law by reasoning that (1) the falling section is meeting resistance equal to 36% of its own weight, so (2) the falling section must be exerting a downward force equal to 36% of its own weight.

That's an accounting mistake. Gravity didn't go away, so the falling section always exerts a downward force equal to 100% of its weight. The question is how much of that force is resisted (36%, according to Chandler) and how much goes into acceleration (64%, also according to Chandler). The rest of Chandler's statement is a non sequitur.

Will

[rwguinn]

No. It makes no sense.

It makes sense until "The implication of this, however, is that the force it is exerting on the lower section of the building is also only 36% of the weight of the falling section." It looks to me as though Chandler is trying to apply Newton's third law by reasoning that (1) the falling section is meeting resistance equal to 36% of its own weight, so (2) the falling section must be exerting a downward force equal to 36% of its own weight.

That's an accounting mistake. Gravity didn't go away, so the falling section always exerts a downward force equal to 100% of its weight. The question is how much of that force is resisted (36%, according to Chandler) and how much goes into acceleration (64%, also according to Chandler). The rest of Chandler's statement is a non sequitur.

Will
The whole thing is nonsense. A falling object generates a whole hell of a lot more FORCE than the same object under static conditions.
These guys use energy and force interchangeably.
Stress is a function of FORCE. Failure occurs because of the APPLIED FORCE exceeding the FORCE CAPABILITY of a structure
Energy is FORCE at WORK. Time is involved

[Furcifer]

Newtons Bit: Check yur PM's, lol

[W.D.Clinger]

The whole thing is nonsense. A falling object generates a whole hell of a lot more FORCE than the same object under static conditions.
These guys use energy and force interchangeably.
Stress is a function of FORCE. Failure occurs because of the APPLIED FORCE exceeding the FORCE CAPABILITY of a structure
Energy is FORCE at WORK. Time is involved

I think you're confusing energy with force.

A falling object acquires kinetic energy. When it hits a static object, that object must either give way or exert a tremendous force (far greater than the weight of the falling object) to arrest the downward motion of the falling object within a very short time and very small deflection.

The falling object doesn't exert that tremendous force. The static object does, else it becomes ex-static. (No pun intended.)

Will

[Newtons Bit]

The falling object doesn't exert that tremendous force. The static object does, else it becomes ex-static. (No pun intended.)

Will

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." I think someone important said that.

In any event, we're starting to get off topic.

[rwguinn]

I think you're confusing energy with force.

A falling object acquires kinetic energy. When it hits a static object, that object must either give way or exert a tremendous force (far greater than the weight of the falling object) to arrest the downward motion of the falling object within a very short time and very small deflection.

The falling object doesn't exert that tremendous force. The static object does, else it becomes ex-static. (No pun intended.)

Will
Bull's-eye.
The twufers don't see that connection.

[W.D.Clinger]

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." I think someone important said that.

I stand corrected. What I should have said is that the falling object doesn't exert that tremendous force until it encounters the static object. The magnitude of the force exerted by the falling object is determined by the force exerted by the static object, which depends in turn on its stiffness, hardness, et cetera, and by whether it has enough strength to absorb the full impact before failing. In this case, it didn't.

In any event, we're starting to get off topic.

Sorry about that. I was just speculating as to how someone with Chandler's education could have written such nonsense.

Will

[NutCracker]

I hope this is still on topic, but further to Dave's last post, I also fail to see how the two main truther arguments can coexist:

1) That any collapse very close to freefall speed indicates explosive demolition
2) That when the collapse proceeds significantly slower than freefall speed (Tony's 70% figure, for example, and Chandler's 64%), this also indicates explosive demolition!!


Elementary propositional logic: false -> true is a true statement, true -> true is a true statement. CD, "the towers where destroyed by explosive demolition," is a true statement because it is an axiom. Therefore, not("free fall") -> CD and "free fall" -> CD both are true statements.


QED.

;):D:boxedin:

[alienentity]

No. It makes no sense.

It makes sense until "The implication of this, however, is that the force it is exerting on the lower section of the building is also only 36% of the weight of the falling section." It looks to me as though Chandler is trying to apply Newton's third law by reasoning that (1) the falling section is meeting resistance equal to 36% of its own weight, so (2) the falling section must be exerting a downward force equal to 36% of its own weight.

That's an accounting mistake. Gravity didn't go away, so the falling section always exerts a downward force equal to 100% of its weight. The question is how much of that force is resisted (36%, according to Chandler) and how much goes into acceleration (64%, also according to Chandler). The rest of Chandler's statement is a non sequitur.

Will

That's my read of it as well. The statement 'This is much less than the force it would exert if it were at rest' is just mindbogglingly silly. Even worse is that truthers aren't calling him on this nonsense.

[TjW]

I hope this is still on topic, but further to Dave's last post, I also fail to see how the two main truther arguments can coexist:

1) That any collapse very close to freefall speed indicates explosive demolition
2) That when the collapse proceeds significantly slower than freefall speed (Tony's 70% figure, for example, and Chandler's 64%), this also indicates explosive demolition!!

I can't imagine these arguments would fool many wise observers, but I suppose they get the job done when foisted on the gullible and uninformed.

It's the "Twoofer Two-step". You'll see it quite often: Debris within the footprint? Evidence of deliberate demolition. Debris outside the footprint? Evidence of deliberate demolition.

[cmcaulif]

Alien
I would have said you must be crazy mistaken, but here it is:
Can anyone make sense of this

"Downward Acceleration of the North Tower
The roofline of WTC1 (The North Tower) begins dropping with sudden onset and accelerates uniformly downward at about 64% of the acceleration of gravity (g) until it disappears into the dust. This means it is meeting resistance equal to about 36% of its weight. The implication of this, however, is that the force it is exerting on the lower section of the building is also only 36% of the weight of the falling section. This is much less than the force it would exert if it were at rest. The acceleration data thus prove that the falling top section of the building cannot be responsible for the destruction of the lower section of the building.
[I want to acknowledge the work of Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti who have been engaged in similar measurements by other means and have reached similar conclusions.]
David Chandler

http://www.911speakout.org/ (near bottom of page)

The big problem here is he ignores the inertia force, which must be considered in any dynamic problem.

Once we add the inertia force, a free body diagram of the upper block (which chandler seems to try to do) can be drawn that actually makes sense. This is the case because once the inertia force is included the system can be said to be in equilibrium

For example considering downward positive, the sum of the gravity(mg, acting down), inertia(mass of the upper block times its acceleration, acting up by definition), and resistive forces from the lower structure (F acting up) looks like this:

mg - ma - F = 0
or
mg - F = ma
or
g- F/m = a

from this you can tell if F/m > g, a will be negative, meaning upward in this case. That means the upper block decelerates.

On the other hand if F/m < g, the upper block will accelerate.

If the deceleration caused by resistive force F is enough to arrest collapse can't be known without knowing the specific details about the columns(and considering energy quantities would be better anyway), but we can say that we know the resistive force will vary with the displacement of the column. Also since the columns were designed to hold the static force mg with a reasonable factor of safety, there is certainly a time when the upper block decelerates, followed by a time when it accelerates because a column loses almost all of its strength when it buckles.

In short, chandler showed that the lower structure will cause the upper portion to accelerate at an average rate less than the rate of gravitational acceleration. Which would be expected in a gravity driven collapse where the lower structure provides resistance.

[cmcaulif]

Also the phrase "The acceleration data thus prove that the falling top section of the building cannot be responsible for the destruction of the lower section of the building"
is very vague but it seems to imply that the collapse should be halted abruptly upon contact of the upper and lower blocks.

Referring back to
g - F/m = a
or
g - F/m = DeltV/DeltT
you can see that if you want to change the velocity of the upper block from some finite number to zero instantaneously(i.e. with no time change), the acceleration will be infinite in magnitude acting up, which implies a resistive force that is also infinite.

Maybe thats not what chandler is arguing but it seems that way

[triforcharity]

It's the "Twoofer Two-step". You'll see it quite often: Debris within the footprint? Evidence of deliberate demolition. Debris outside the footprint? Evidence of deliberate demolition.

I have a comic about this.

http://static.stripgenerator.com/generated/triforcharity/strip/2009/06/28/cdboth.png

[Edx]

Hey Ryan,

What do you think of Jim Hoffmans responce to your paper debunking Griffin?

[Hokulele]

Hey Ryan,

What do you think of Jim Hoffmans responce to your paper debunking Griffin?


Appendix D of the 2.1 version of Mackey's paper is a roughly 50 page response to Hoffman's comments.

[R.Mackey]

You can download that paper here (http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf). We also had a discussion last year in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113985). But this is off-topic -- your question would have been better in a PM, or to find the original discussion.

[911kongen]

MacKey, have you tried to get a debate with Richard Gage?

[Hokulele]

What is with the bizarre obsession with debating?

[911kongen]

What is with the bizarre obsession with debating?

I dont know... you tell me

[Hokulele]

I dont know... you tell me


I have no idea, which is why I asked. If you don't know, why have you even bothered requesting various debates in multiple threads?

[tsig]

I have no idea, which is why I asked. If you don't know, why have you even bothered requesting various debates in multiple threads?

I don't think anyone should debate them. It only lends credibility to the idea that the TM has any scientific merit at all.

[Hokulele]

R.Mackey, I think this relates to the OP as well as to the request to move the dialog forward that you made a few pages back. If it doesn't, feel free to request that this be split off somewhere.

I don't think anyone should debate them. It only lends credibility to the idea that the TM has any scientific merit at all.


That is certainly part of it, similar sentiments were expressed by Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen Jay Gould regarding creationists. I think there is a bit more to it than that. As I see it, there are essentially three reasons I recommend against people such as R.Mackey spending time in debates:

1) The credibility issue mentioned previously.
2) Scientific principles aren't determined by debate.
3) There are better uses for R.Mackey's time.

Any one of these reasons is good enough on its own for ignoring further challenges, so I will expand a bit on each.

The Credibility Issue

Many of the debate challenges that have come up in the past two years have been on very minor points that lead back to what is becoming known as an irreducible delusion. Some of these challenges are though live debates, others through published papers and rebuttals (although not in any reputable publication), and some posted in various fora. Ace Baker and his video manipulation, the Jones/Harritt nano-thermite, and most recently, Tony Szamboti and his missing jolt are all examples of obscure and isolated ideas that have been the subject of one challenge or another. Without the apparent credibility they receive from the acceptance of their challenges, very few people will be exposed to, much less swayed by their opinions.

In each of those cases, people with a relevant background have exposed the flaws central to each topic. As has been shown repeatedly on this forum, even those laypeople with a willingness to research a bit more into those topics can point out where and how each of those ideas previously mentioned fails. You can easily see how this type of debate is seen as a play for credibility by looking at who exactly is being challenged, and in which media those challenges are broadcast.

A classic example is Charlie Sheen's recent call-out of various Republican media personalities. Brainster is far more versed in the various elements of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but debating Brainster doesn't convey the same cachet as debating Rush Limbaugh (sorry Brainster, no offense). If Charlie Sheen truly wished to have an earnest debate with someone who knows what they are talking about, why ignore Brainster's acceptance of his challenge? It is all about the credibility factor. This is what Dawkins and Gould were referring to in the essay by Dawkins on why he doesn't debate creationists.

Science and Debate

Although scientific principles have been the topic of many, many debates, that really isn't how the scientific method works. The testing of hypotheses isn't something that is done by two or more people sneering at each other in public (although that can be fun too). Asking questions is all well and good, but finding answers to those questions and then trying, and failing, to falsify those answers is how we determine which answers are the correct ones.

Debates aren't always won by those who have the greatest command of science, but often by those who have the greatest command of oration. Debates are an excellent way to sway public opinion, which is why they feature prominently in political discourse. In a sense, debates are only about opinion. Some of these opinions may be based on facts, some on emotion, and some based on other motives such as greed, fear, or madness.

I would say that it is more than fair to call for a debate on a topic such as "Should There Be a New Investigation: Why vs. Why Not" or "What Should Be Done to Prevent Future Attacks", but not on a topic such as "Does Fire Weaken Steel: Yes or No".

Better Usage of Resources

After having seen many of the arguments put forth by the various conspiracy theorists that populate this forum, it is clear that most of them are based on other people's work. There is very little original research being done these days (Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin, I am looking at you). Even more obviously, those parroting the works of others apparently have very little understanding of what they are repeating. Simply posting the various point by point rebuttals to those arguments have little or no effect, as the CTist might have no idea what they are posting means in the first place. Sadly enough, this same ignorance sometimes applies to those who rebut as well, where they are simply reposting or linking to previous rebuttals made by those who do have the expertise.

Rather than simply rehashing debate points that have been made ad nauseum, a better approach would be to address the underlying deficiencies in the knowledge of those on both sides of the issues.

Now, none of this is to say that R.Mackey is bad at debating, but rather that there are better uses of his time. As he showed with the series of Hardfire appearances on the topic of the science of 9/11, he is quite capable of general science education, something that people on both sides of the 9/11 debate need and often sorely lack. Creating similar presentations on other topics would be a far more valuable contribution than another 2 hours of angular momentum calculations.

Not all of this needs to be done by R.Mackey, as there are many other topics related to 9/11 that could easily benefit from this treatment. For example, a presentation on how to do research would be an invaluable reference when dealing with the parrots. What are primary sources and why is citing them important? When two accounts conflict, how does a researcher resolve the contradictions (or even should they)? What is the best way to conduct an interview?

Other topics can include how scientific testing is supposed to work (i.e. the anti-Truthburn), what are the international contributions to what we know about 9/11, how to read and interpret the various financial documents cited and discussed (although not so much recently), and so forth.


In conclusion, I do believe there is still much to be discussed and even discovered regarding the events of September 11, 2001, but progress will not be made by engaging with those who are stuck in 2006 or with those whose work has been shown to be fatally flawed.

[ElMondoHummus]

"Crush" core and perimeter columns? How do people manage to conflate "sever" with "crush"? It takes more energy to completely deform a wide flange beam or a box column than it would to merely sever the connection points.

Why, oh why is there this constant need for conspiracy addicts to overstate what's required for the tower to come apart?

[newton3376]

"Crush" core and perimeter columns? How do people manage to conflate "sever" with "crush"? It takes more energy to completely deform a wide flange beam or a box column than it would to merely sever the connection points.

Why, oh why is there this constant need for conspiracy addicts to overstate what's required for the tower to come apart?

For most of them, it's because they aren't engineers or scientists and simply don't have the education or experience to understand why the towers fell.

They use their imagination instead of math and investigoogle instead of reading actual engineering papers with *gasp* math and physics in it.

For the very few that should know better but continue to believe the "troof" I honestly don't know why they don't correct their viewpoint but I suspect pride and embarrassment are factors that play in...

[triforcharity]

Newton,

Money also plays a BIG role. How much money do you think Gage and his merry band of dolts make in a year?? A bunch I would bet.

They aren't even their OWN 501(c)(3), they use some other company called The Agaape Foundation.

[BasqueArch]

Mackey
Since this is your thread which topics would you like to consider on topic. We got onto TS "missing jolt" which led onto the explanation of "tilt" columns hitting slab not columns below therefore no "jolt". Then we discovered the "missing jolts" in TS's basement. Which led to Scott Milner bringing up "rotation" and so on.

What else did you discuss.

[R.Mackey]

Interesting that there are two points of view within this thread. One person thinks the upper section didn't stop rotating; the other says the upper section stopped rotating while incorrectly quoting Galileo!

Scott, neither point of view belongs in this thread. I've reported you for being off-topic. This subject didn't come up in our debate, in all likelihood because Tony is smart enough to realize that your argument is ridiculous.

That argument, incidentally, is that "it doesn't look right to me." I can't respond to that with any hope of making progress, because you've created an unfalsifiable belief. I've already written many, many pages on what happened and why. There are already many threads on this topic. Go there. Go away. Follow your membership agreement and basic rules of common courtesy.

ETA: As a parting shot, to stimulate discussion in whatever proper thread you wind up in, the impossibility of toppling behavior has already been investigated by tenured structural engineering professors, and published in real journals. The name Dr. Bazant should ring a bell. You are evidently ignorant of these viewpoints as well.

MacKey, have you tried to get a debate with Richard Gage?

No. I don't seek debates. It works the other way around -- Truthers try to pick fights with me. You'll notice, for instance, that even now there hasn't been a single response to my Hardfire Modeling Challenge.

Richard Gage, also, was quite easily destroyed (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-3685846057748316809#) in debate (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-459844559898426929#23m50s) by Mark Roberts on Hardfire last year. If Gage has a lick of sense, he'll avoid such debates in the future. If he doesn't have a lick of sense, I would surely be wasting my time.

Again, after my experience with Tony, I am ever more convinced that the Truth Movement, to a man, is so unscientific and so badly prepared that there can be no meaningful debate with any of them. They believe things that are false. Showing these things are false is easy. But they don't create new material. So, what's the point? A debate is the same fruitless argument in a different package -- it's a waste of time.

As Hokulele said, there is still room to use this topic for educational purposes, but in that context the Truth Movement adds nothing. They should be watching such a discussion and learning from it, not participating in and disrupting it.

If there is a Truther who has a good grasp of science and valid questions, then let him or her appear and talk about it online first. It's happened before plenty of times, it could happen again, but all the smart ones seem to have figured it out and moved on.

[911kongen]

Scott, neither point of view belongs in this thread. I've reported you for being off-topic. This subject didn't come up in our debate, in all likelihood because Tony is smart enough to realize that your argument is ridiculous.

That argument, incidentally, is that "it doesn't look right to me." I can't respond to that with any hope of making progress, because you've created an unfalsifiable belief. I've already written many, many pages on what happened and why. There are already many threads on this topic. Go there. Go away. Follow your membership agreement and basic rules of common courtesy.

ETA: As a parting shot, to stimulate discussion in whatever proper thread you wind up in, the impossibility of toppling behavior has already been investigated by tenured structural engineering professors, and published in real journals. The name Dr. Bazant should ring a bell. You are evidently ignorant of these viewpoints as well.



No. I don't seek debates. It works the other way around -- Truthers try to pick fights with me. You'll notice, for instance, that even now there hasn't been a single response to my Hardfire Modeling Challenge.

Richard Gage, also, was quite easily destroyed (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-3685846057748316809#) in debate (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-459844559898426929#23m50s) by Mark Roberts on Hardfire last year. If Gage has a lick of sense, he'll avoid such debates in the future. If he doesn't have a lick of sense, I would surely be wasting my time.

Again, after my experience with Tony, I am ever more convinced that the Truth Movement, to a man, is so unscientific and so badly prepared that there can be no meaningful debate with any of them. They believe things that are false. Showing these things are false is easy. But they don't create new material. So, what's the point? A debate is the same fruitless argument in a different package -- it's a waste of time.

As Hokulele said, there is still room to use this topic for educational purposes, but in that context the Truth Movement adds nothing. They should be watching such a discussion and learning from it, not participating in and disrupting it.

If there is a Truther who has a good grasp of science and valid questions, then let him or her appear and talk about it online first. It's happened before plenty of times, it could happen again, but all the smart ones seem to have figured it out and moved on.

I agree with you MacKey! Debating a truther will never make him change his mind! But I dont think that is the purpose with this kinds of debates.. The debates is out there for people that is lost and looking for facts. Seeing you and Gage debating, will probably help them out. Just like debates with Mark Roberts and LC. And the debate with LC and PM! Two great debates that I know have helped a lot of people. The debate did not help Dylan og Jason.. but I dont think that was the purpose with the debate!

I think you just have to give up convincing the truth movment, but help people getting lost in this debate! That is what I think is the purpose with the debates.

[Hokulele]

I agree with you MacKey! Debating a truther will never make him change his mind! But I dont think that is the purpose with this kinds of debates.. The debates is out there for people that is lost and looking for facts. Seeing you and Gage debating, will probably help them out. Just like debates with Mark Roberts and LC. And the debate with LC and PM! Two great debates that I know have helped a lot of people. The debate did not help Dylan og Jason.. but I dont think that was the purpose with the debate!

I think you just have to give up convincing the truth movment, but help people getting lost in this debate! That is what I think is the purpose with the debates.


But why does this education have to take the form of a debate?

[Stellafane]

But why does this education have to take the form of a debate?

It doesn't. An injection works just as well.


[He he he -- let a few tiny minds stew over that one for awhile...]

[Hokulele]

Stellafane, you are a bad, bad man.

[911kongen]

I have not said it HAS to be just debates! BUT the debates is getting a lot of attention.. thats good!

[Gaspode]

Discussion on rotation of the upper section split to new thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=155899).

[ElMondoHummus]

But why does this education have to take the form of a debate?

I second the gist of Hokulele's response here. My stance is that a debate is actually a poor forum to rebut truthers claims in. I acknowledge that it's a popular suggestion, but I fear that it is so for bad reasons. You see, too many people get hung up on the fact that some "head to head" airing out of the competing stances is the most useful because it supposedly puts the arguments to the greatest test. I mean, that's always been the rationale behind debates: Testing your argument against the opposition.

Problem is, head to head debate is not a forum amenable to proper dissemination of knowledge. Or in plainer english: How do you teach during a debate? It's about stance and counterstance, not about whose argument is better grounded in reality. You're responding to tactical moves and having to counter assorted fallaciously put stances (such as various pleas to emotionalism, appeals to authority, etc.). Arguments that would fall absolutely, positively flat in other presentations (like in forums such as this, or in actual formal academic journals) can actually carry in a head-to-head type of presentation such as a TV debate. It's simply not a good vehicle to teach the background necessary to truly comprehend the scope and magnitude of the conspiracy peddler's levels of deception. Worse yet, it plays into their argument, since all they'd have to do is hint at government plots to get their arguments across ("There might be something there, let's investigate again!"), whereas rationalists would be cast into the role of needing to know definitive answers. It's just plain a bad playing field for discovery of actual truth.

On top of that, there's a time disparity that works in favor of the truthers: It takes all of 5 seconds to blurt out "free fall", "NORAD stood down", and "thermite was found by a scientist", whereas it takes on the order of minutes to properly explain away the delusions behind each of those claims. Head to head debate is inherently a poor forum for arguing these issues since it puts a premium on who's a better verbal wordsmith, and actually negates the impact of careful research and assembling of supporting arguments because of the time limitations and attention spans of the audience. That is why I'm better satisfied with the debate through forums like this, as well as any attempt by truthers to enter the scientific debate with genuine, honest approaches to relevant publications and journals (no, for the thousandth time, the Journal of 9/11 Studies and Bentham Open Access do not count). We can demonstrate that the economy of argument on the truthers end is in reality a paucity of depth and understanding. That's not easy to do in head-to-head debate.

All of these reasons are why I'm very much impressed with Ryan and Mark: They've done debates, and have prevailed despite the heavy disadvantages in doing so. Me, I'd rather not cede so many advantages to forms of argument that are more susceptible to slickness and more tolerant to fallacy. I'd rather that the information is disseminated, period, and if a truther wants someone to go face-to-face, that's his problem. Me, I'm satisfied with it being out there for sane people to find and use to judge for themselves.

I acknowldge that 911kongen is making this suggestion for good, thoughtful reasons. It's just that I believe that it's not only not the best method to use to get the 9/11 myth refutations out, but that it actually can favor denialists and conspiracy hucksters' by limiting the very strengths rationalists have: Depth, detail, demonstrated expertise, demonstrated accumulation of relevant accurate knowledge, mutual support between and demonstrated convergences of independent lines of evidence, and so on. This is why I put myself to voice (well, text actually) to recommend against it: It's because it's inherently limiting to the rationalist side. And that's why it's a bad choice to make, regardless of how superior the rationalist performances have been so far.

[DavidJames]

What ElMondoHummus said. And said very very well.

[DGM]

I have not said it HAS to be just debates! BUT the debates is getting a lot of attention.. thats good!
What attention? Shut off the internet and no one know they ever happened (or the "truthers" even exist for that matter).