Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*?

[ozeco41]

Bits Which Tony Gets Right

One of the hazards facing a truther who posts scattered nonsense without regard to context or consistency is that occasionally they get something right. And some of us remember.

Some years back I was facing a prominent poster username "psikeyhackr" of whom many of you will be aware. He is a more prolific poster than Tony but his style is similar. Including occasionally getting bits right but disconnected from context and inconsistent.

So I decided to collect the bits with a view of creating a coherent valid argument in psikey's own words. Devious me - and you all thought I was open and honest and...

Here are a few snippets Tony has posted on this current page of posts:

The first ones are bits Tony gets right - so add them to the collection:

Only 15% of the columns were disturbed. To even think that would make a difference is disturbing...

Good. Tony agrees with me that the effect of failure of the majority of columns will dominate the mechanism. Save me arguing that point if ever we get into discussion.

I also say the acceleration through the first story is too much for a natural collapse with buckling columns

The acceleration referred to occurs AFTER the Top Block is falling and the buckling knees have gone past each other. Again Tony agrees with me - "Falling Top Block means column ends have bypassed".

...and to add to that there is no deceleration of the column knees after they had buckled and collapsed as alleged by you and others here.

Same point despite the cumbersome sentence. "There was no deceleration after..." Agreed again.

That's all Folks (Bunny B multiple references)

**************************************************
The following either neutral or bits he got wrong:

How about "no deceleration" or "free fall" of the upper sections of the buildings means controlled demolition.

Well not directly relevant - it is a simple falsehood that no qualified engineer could make as a truthful claim. Free fall does NOT distinguish CD. Neither does "no deceleration". Both are artefacts of the specific collapse mechanism. NOT what started the collapse.

It seems I am wasting my time here.

Depends on his objective. If his goal is to get us wasting time he could be succeeding. My objective is to help those who do not understand physics. So based on the evidence of Tony's posts he could be a potential candidate for my help explaining the physics.

That is not the kind of buckling that would allow the collapse.

So what is? He must know but is keeping it secret?

 

[000063]

Indeed, and I think it's also worth mentioning that the commodity in conspiracism is attention. The conspiracy theorists who are the most successful (as they seem to define success) are those whose theories are the most memorable or shocking in their scope -- thus they get more attention. This means brash and memorable amendments must be constantly made to each particular theorist's version.

I'm not sure the term "clickbait" would be quite accurate here, but it's pretty darn close.

Only 15% of the columns were disturbed. To even think that would make a difference is disturbing.

Sure, a little less than one-sixth of the columns being disturbed by the impact is certainly not significant damage. /sarcasm

The wings never got to the central core columns ...

You mean those flimsy pieces of metal that don't contain most of the plane's weight, and therefore would have less of an impact than, say, the fuselage?

It is hard to see how you can say I want it both ways. Your thinking is not correct on this and that is the problem here.

I also say the acceleration through the first story is too much for a natural collapse with buckling columns and to add to that there is no deceleration of the column knees after they had buckled and collapsed as alleged by you and others here. They are not incompatible criticisms of the natural collapse notion you and some others here are trying to defend.

Oh, look, nothing about how this points to a CD. What a shock.

Maybe the center would after a large rotation, but the knees would be there. Your thinking isn't correct either. No wonder you and several of the others are confused and don't get it. It seems I am wasting my time here.

I certainly concur. I'd also think you'd've learned not to leave yourself that wide open.

That is not the kind of buckling that would allow the collapse. It is these kind of silly arguments that makes me say you have to be a shill because nobody can be this stupid.

Flat gainsay, personal attack, complete lack of real substance or content.

Yawn.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Good. Tony agrees with me that the effect of failure of the majority of columns will dominate the mechanism. Save me arguing that point if ever we get into discussion.

[semantic insert]
And the figure is only slightly less significant than he gives credit to. The plane hit WTC 1 almost dead center which made the overall transfer of loads from the impact regions ==> hat truss ==> exterior columns less eccentric. That's largely why it faired so much relatively better than its WTC 2 counterpart

If I recall, WTC 2 suffered a similar quantified loss (I say this VERY approximately and broadly), yet due to the angle of the hit, it suffered a more eccentric redistribution of loads topped onto having 30 floors above. The eccentricity of the hit was perhaps the more significant distinction.

Though not intended there are valid derivative analyses that come out of it.

 

[ozeco41]

Only 15% of the columns were disturbed. To even think that would make a difference is disturbing.

Sure, a little less than one-sixth of the columns being disturbed by the impact is certainly not significant damage. /sarcasm

Your sarcasm well justified but there is an engineering issue which may not be obvious to some members. Tony's error is probably worse than he realises.

The basic issue is that cutting 25% of columns does not automatically mean 25% less load capacity. It could be - almost certainly will be - a lot worse and it will never be better.

Put simply removal of a proportion of columns will almost always weaken the structure by more than the proportion of columns removed.

I invite members to try this little example as a "thought exercise" - it is a worst case scenario to demonstrate the point - a pseudo WTC Tower built with three rows of columns L, C and R.

So just three rows of columns.
They are carrying loads of L=100, C= 200 and R=100.

Step #1
The Top Block we assume rigid. Cut out all of row "R"
Q 1A What happens to the loads in "L" and "C"?
Q 1B Does the Top Block move?

Step #2
The Top block is really slightly flexible as with any steel framed structure.
Again remove row "R"
Q 2A What happens to the loads in "L" and "C"?
Q 2B Does the Top Block move?
Q 2C Why (or why not)?

Have fun. Winners get one mini Mars Bar as reward - available for collection from here in Moss Vale. I'll even throw in a beer or three...for those who collect their prize.

 

[jay howard]

So, why would you argue that the trusses sagged 40" in the simulation and only state heat as the contributing cause? That seems dishonest on your part.

Are you looking for the truth or are you arguing it?

NIST says trusses sagged 40-plus inches in their simulation--largely due to the fact that they had no SFRM on them. But in controlled lab conditions, steel temps peaked at 800C and stayed there for almost an hour--not counting the time it took to get to 800C, and no "cascade failure." Therefore either the simulation is pure dog dung or, the temperatures were substantially hotter than for which the official narrative (however you define it) can admit to existing in the first place.

A thermodynamic conundrum.

It wasn't gravity that pulled the trusses down. Gravity had been exerting itself against them since they were built. What am I being dishonest about? Do you suppose the trusses would sag without the heat?

Would you like to claim that the trusses would have sagged 40 inches without the heat? What would cause that?

It was the sagging of the truss sections that supposedly pulled in the exterior columns, thus causing the much lauded "inward bowing" which supposedly initiated "global collaspe", right?

How do you get to C if A and B do not proceed as described?

 

[tsig]

That is not the kind of buckling that would allow the collapse. It is these kind of silly arguments that makes me say you have to be a shill because nobody can be this stupid.

Buckled columns that have already failed under load are supposed to be able to now support the load?

 

[ozeco41]

[semantic insert]
And the figure is only slightly less significant than he gives credit to.

Mmmm... read my post which "crossed in posting" - do the "Engineering Physics 101" warm up exercise - then give me your opinion of Tony's comment.

Rest of your post spot on target.

The plane hit WTC 1 almost dead center which made the overall transfer of loads from the impact regions ==> hat truss ==> exterior columns less eccentric. That's largely why it faired so much relatively better than its WTC 2 counterpart

If I recall, WTC 2 suffered a similar quantified loss (I say this VERY approximately and broadly), yet due to the angle of the hit, it suffered a more eccentric redistribution of loads topped onto having 30 floors above. The eccentricity of the hit was perhaps the more significant distinction.

Agreed - it is an interesting aspect of cascade failure - the criticality of distribution of where the columns are cut PLUS the proportion which has failed at any time in the sequence. And we can explain it in high school student accessible language and concepts. Provided we go "step at a time". The engineers can bite their tongues, monitor me for quality and not nit pick any second order details until we get the main themes in place.

Though not intended there are valid derivative analyses that come out of it.

There certainly are.

 

[NoahFence]

Your sarcasm well justified but there is an engineering issue which may not be obvious to some members. Tony's error is probably worse than he realises.

The basic issue is that cutting 25% of columns does not automatically mean 25% less load capacity. It could be a lot worse and it will never be better.

Put simply removal of a proportion of columns will almost always weaken the structure by more than the proportion of columns removed.

I invite members to try this little example as a "thought exercise" - it is a worst case scenario to demonstrate the point - a pseudo WTC Tower built with three rows of columns L, C and R.
[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/webjref/3colsmodela.jpg[/qimg]
So just three rows of columns.
They are carrying loads of L=100, C= 200 and R=100.

Step #1
The Top Block we assume rigid. Cut out all of row "R"
What happens to the loads in "L" and "C"?
Does the Top Block move?

Step #2
The Top block is really slightly flexible as with any steel framed structure.
Again remove row "R"
What happens to the loads in "L" and "C"?
Does the Top Block move?
Why (or why not)?

Have fun. Winners get one mini Mars Bar as reward - available for collection from here in Moss Vale. I'll even throw in a beer or three...for those who collect their prize.

I'd say the first question results in the too block falling toward the empty space where R just was.

Second question results in no movement - assuming this exercise is so dumbed down even I got it right.

 

[ozeco41]

NIST says trusses sagged 40-plus inches in their simulation--largely due to the fact that they had no SFRM on them. But in controlled lab conditions, steel temps peaked at 800C and stayed there for almost an hour--not counting the time it took to get to 800C, and no "cascade failure." Therefore either the simulation is pure dog dung or, the temperatures were substantially hotter than for which the official narrative (however you define it) can admit to existing in the first place.

A thermodynamic conundrum.

It wasn't gravity that pulled the trusses down. Gravity had been exerting itself against them since they were built. What am I being dishonest about? Do you suppose the trusses would sag without the heat?

Would you like to claim that the trusses would have sagged 40 inches without the heat? What would cause that?

It was the sagging of the truss sections that supposedly pulled in the exterior columns, thus causing the much lauded "inward bowing" which supposedly initiated "global collaspe", right?

How do you get to C if A and B do not proceed as described?

jay put your nonsense on hold for a while and come along for the ride.

Do the "thought exercise" in my post and I will walk you through the relevant bits of Physics 101. Working up to the full picture. Which is about Physics 401 level*. Ball in your court - I will ignore trolling of repeated nonsense aimed at disrupting discussion.

All the columns which failed in axial compression got "hot enough" << Do us all a favour and read that carefully. I made no comment EITHER WAY about CD. Leave CD in the mix if you wish until you understand the physics because the physics applies equally to CD assisted as it does to natural.

At this stage I'm explaining some basics of load re-distribution. Adding heat into the mix comes at the next round. For those who pass stage 1.


* Actually it is beyond undergraduate pure physics - more likely to come up in Structures 301. Or the Masters Degree at the University of Real Experience..but..

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Mmmm... read my post which "crossed in posting" - do the "Engineering Physics 101" warm up exercise - then give me your opinion of Tony's comment.

A little context behind my remark. The towers lost integrity from the impact, but a bit less than one who is unfamiliar with the engineering may think. In WTC 1's case this was particularly true because of the way it was hit and the way the loads were able to transfer more efficiently. T's history has always been to suggest the raw proportion of loss is key and to minimize the still severe damage... and this is only superficially truthful, and always must account for the 3 dimensionality.

As buildings and habitable spaces are 3 dimensional volumes, load paths and distribution are a far more primary factor than in axial load situations where the raw material strengths would take more of the precedent, (not always the case either when slenderness is a factor of the equation)

 

[ozeco41]

I'd say the first question results in the too block falling toward the empty space where R just was.

Second question results in no movement - assuming this exercise is so dumbed down even I got it right.

Thanks Noah - If you don't mind I'll defer "marking the exam" until a few more members have responded.

BTW I've edited the post to put numbers on the questions.

EDIT: PS And sent Noah a PM with all five answers. Save him suffering anxiety attacks....

 

[jaydeehess]

That is not the kind of buckling that would allow the collapse. It is these kind of silly arguments that makes me say you have to be a shill because nobody can be this stupid.

Really?
It illustrates upper knee and lower knee having moved past each other with no gap. It is real world creep buckling. REAL WORLD Tony , Real, get it?
No hypothetical in line , gapped knees, and might I add, no evidence of extra heat from a thermite burn.

Heated columns under load in a real structure that had no tilt. (WTC5)


Eta:removed my response to ignorant ad hom directed at me.

 

[ozeco41]

A little context behind my remark. The towers lost integrity from the impact, but a bit less than one who is unfamiliar with the engineering may think. In WTC 1's case this was particularly true because of the way it was hit and the way the loads were able to transfer more efficiently. T's history has always been to suggest the raw proportion of loss is key and to minimize the still severe damage... and this is only superficially truthful, and always must account for the 3 dimensionality.

As buildings and habitable spaces are 3 dimensional volumes, load paths and distribution are a far more primary factor than in axial load situations where the raw material strengths would take more of the precedent, (not always the case either when slenderness is a factor of the equation)

I'm in near full agreement.

BUT I'm suggesting that it isn’t simply one way "a bit less than one who is unfamiliar with the engineering may think"

Au contraire I'm issuing a big hint that it will be worse than proportion of columns damaged suggests AND with one improbable exception ALWAYS far worse than non engineers would think.

The background of WTC 9/11 discussion is littered with presumptions that 25% loss of columns would impose 33.3% increased load on the remaining ones. Uniform proportional redistribution.

It isn't . It never could be for WTC hit one side. And the effects are far worse than many active posters comprehend. And that includes a few engineers who miss the point.

Whether Tony understands it or not he is painting a picture to support his bias. I'm painting the true physics.




Which supports MY bias

 

[jaydeehess]

Anyone who has played Jenga understands that removing the center block first is always the most stable move. In TSz world it wouldn't matter in the slightest.

(Yes I understand the details that separate Jenga from large office structures)

 

[ozeco41]

Anyone who has played Jenga understands that removing the center block first is always the most stable move. In TSz world it wouldn't matter in the slightest.

(Yes I understand the details that separate Jenga from large office structures)

I often wonder how many folk suffer difficulties with practical physics in later life because they never played with physical toys and puzzles in childhood. How do you learn the basic skills unless you are exposed to them and need to practise them? Miss out then and you enter adulthood without some of the tool kit for time and space activities in the real world.

I started about age nine with those puzzles that come apart and you have to disassemble then reassemble. There is a whole science in them and the topological issues they raise.

And that was late - my grandkids have some of those things now.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

Thought it was your fault - go sit in the corner and ponder this:

Are you aware of the factor - that part of the picture I describe by my "Twin Hypotheses"?

Yes, Sir, I am aware of that....sorry Sir, I won't do it again (actually I might).

 

[ozeco41]

Anyone who has played Jenga understands that removing the center block first is always the most stable move. In TSz world it wouldn't matter in the slightest.

(Yes I understand the details that separate Jenga from large office structures)

I missed the significance of this little throw away post first time I read it.

BUT look what it also means in T SzLand.

No-one would doubt that blocks falling from a Jenga Tower fall at free fall. Agreed?

Now in T SzLand "free fall" means - only occurs with - CD.

Here - he said it:

No deceleration or free fall acceleration means controlled demolition. It really is that simple.

So it is simple - free fall means CD.

Which means in the logic of T SzLand physics every time a Jenga Tower Falls over....

..wait for it - no jumping ahead..

....it means CD.

He hasn't said whether explosive or thermXte but quick - lock up the Jenga. Far too much risk to have kids playing with explosives OR incendiaries.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I missed the significance of this little throw away post first time I read it.

BUT look what it also means in T SzLand.

No-one would doubt that blocks falling from a Jenga Tower fall at free fall. Agreed?

Now in T SzLand "free fall" means - only occurs with - CD.

Here - he said it:

So it is simple - free fall means CD.

Which means in the logic of T SzLand physics every time a Jenga Tower Falls over....

..wait for it - no jumping ahead..

....it means CD.

He hasn't said whether explosive or thermXte but quick - lock up the Jenga. Far too much risk to have kids playing with explosives OR incendiaries.

This comment is 100% pure inanity and yet another example of the lack of a cohesive argument from those who would deny that the three high rises in NYC came down due to controlled demolition.

I wasn't talking about anything falling over like the unconnected blocks of a Jenga tower.

I was obviously saying that well connected steel framed high rises like the WTC Towers and WTC 7 can't collapse through themselves with no deceleration or at free fall acceleration without controlled demolition being involved.

 

[Oystein]

Your sarcasm well justified but there is an engineering issue which may not be obvious to some members. Tony's error is probably worse than he realises.

The basic issue is that cutting 25% of columns does not automatically mean 25% less load capacity. It could be - almost certainly will be - a lot worse and it will never be better.

Put simply removal of a proportion of columns will almost always weaken the structure by more than the proportion of columns removed.

I invite members to try this little example as a "thought exercise" - it is a worst case scenario to demonstrate the point - a pseudo WTC Tower built with three rows of columns L, C and R.
[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/webjref/3colsmodela.jpg[/qimg]
So just three rows of columns.
They are carrying loads of L=100, C= 200 and R=100.

Step #1
The Top Block we assume rigid. Cut out all of row "R"
Q 1A What happens to the loads in "L" and "C"?
Q 1B Does the Top Block move?

Step #2
The Top block is really slightly flexible as with any steel framed structure.
Again remove row "R"
Q 2A What happens to the loads in "L" and "C"?
Q 2B Does the Top Block move?
Q 2C Why (or why not)?

Have fun. Winners get one mini Mars Bar as reward - available for collection from here in Moss Vale. I'll even throw in a beer or three...for those who collect their prize.

1A: Load on C will be (almost) 400, L (almost) 0 (the "almost" accounts for the fact that C is wider than 0 and extends slightly beyond the top block's center of gravity)
1B Assuming the columns are rigid, too, top block will stay put.

2A L=0 (almost, as before). C: Load increases instantly to 400
2B Assuming columns are slightly flexible, too: Top block will pivot clockwise, and its center of gravity will move down. I am not sure about the pivot.
2C At L, load is suddenly reduced from 100 to 0. Since L was in elastic compression from its former load, it will relax and push the left side of the top block up. At C, an additional load of 200 is applied suddenly, which will compress the column more - top block will move down there, until compression results in an upward force equivalent to 400. At that point, however, the downward velocity of the top block is >0. It requires more force to decelerate it. So it will move beyond the new static equilibrium point and compress the column further, until velocity reaches zero. I believe effective force on column C will then be 600.
OR column C gets overloaded and buckles before top block is arrested.
In any case: upwards push at L plus drop at C = net torque.
I think it would depend on the specifics of lateral bracing and stiffness whether the CoG of the top block shifts right beyond C to send the top block falling over to the side

 

[Oystein]

This comment is 100% pure inanity and yet another example of the lack of a cohesive argument from those who would deny that the three high rises in NYC came down due to controlled demolition.

I wasn't talking about anything falling over like the unconnected blocks of a Jenga tower.

For a change, I tend to side with Tony on this. Jenga is not a good comparison here. One could additionally argue that removing blocks from a Jenga tower IS CD, even though the purported goal of the game is to not collapse the tower.

I was obviously saying that well connected steel framed high rises like the WTC Towers and WTC 7 can't collapse through themselves with no deceleration or at free fall acceleration without controlled demolition being involved.

We all know that you keep saying this.
We all also know that you keep not supporting this, and keep being wrong
I'd like to point out that neither the twin towers nor WTC7 collapsed at all as long as they remained "well-connected".