DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
By "everybody", who do you mean? Did I miss the part where people are now taking you seriously? Do you have evidence for this?
Last edited:
Gage and Szamboti to speak at New Jersey Institute of Technology
- Thread starter WilliamSeger
- Start date
By "everybody", who do you mean? Did I miss the part where people are now taking you seriously? Do you have evidence for this?
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
There would most definitely have been a jolt when the upper corner panels on the Ronan Point building hit the lower corner panels after the gas explosion broke one loose at the top. That is the only way a natural collapse could have proceeded and why Zdenek Bazant assumed it happened that way in the case of the North Tower.
The problem with the tower is we later found out there was no jolt. That can only be because charges were the actual means of breaking the structure below.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
You do know you are the only one that believes Bazants models represent reality?
Last edited:
ffs. You were earlier saying it should have self-arrested in the absence of charges lower down.
Get your story straight.
Last edited:
How can you claim that the gravity driven collapse is defunct? It is the way everything collapses on this planet. You can debate the mechanics of how much energy/mass is required to destroy a one of those identical floors... but once that threshold is met you know all the floors below would not arrest.
The floors were designed for a static load of x#/SF... and if the mass was dropping it's force in much greater as a dynamic load than it would be as a static one. You can do the math and it's not 20 floors would are required to initiate the unstoppable collapse. This has nothing to do with the size of capacity of the columns. This is, in fact settle science and engineering and this is used by engineers every day to specify floors construction and you must use strength of materials tables for your own work.
You know of course that Gage doesn't even accept the "natural" nature of the collapse below the plane strike zone. This completely undercuts his competence in basic engineering.
What everyone knows is that overloaded floors collapse.
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
I said Dave Roger's take on the collapse (one strictly due to natural circumstances) was defunct and it was in plain language. How could you possibly misconstrue what I said?
I am dumb... I suppose.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Hogwash. The start of ROOSD did not need accumulating debris - it was triggered as the "Top Block" started bodily descent. The dominant element being the forces applied by the perimeter wall columns impacting the OOS floors and starting the shearing off of OOS floors. (Plus the analogous "beam strip down" process in the core.) Once started accumulating debris continued the process.
You are once again revealing your favourite bit of deceitful trickery - you persistently make false assumptions about starting scenarios in order to falsely support your pre-determined conclusion.
More hogwash. It is evidence of:
1) your commitment to a false model of collapse - which inserts columns into line to create a false opportunity for a massive jolt which would never arise in the real event. So the same "T Sz Trade Mark" debating trick to adopt false starting point assumptions to pre-set the already decided conclusion. Not even a parody of valid reasoning Tony.
2) your willingness to make unsupported quantum leaps of false logic to reach your pre-determined nonsense conclusion. "Lack of deceleration" could plausibly lead to "there were charges" EXCEPT for those quantum leaps of logic and evidence you are missing. Reality was "No CD" and the ball is still in your court if you want to prove CD - go for it and stop all these diversions into trivia.
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
Ozeco, your points are inane. There is no mechanism to cause self-propagation of the floors (ROOSD) in the early stories of the collapse.
ozeco41
Philosopher
As T Sz sinks into ever deeper nonsense denials:
The Top Block is dropping - the early storeys of collapse.
The yellow arrows show the line taken by the perimeter columns as they strike the blue lines of the OOS floors
Those are the simplest examples - the two more extreme sides of WTC 2 - But the same mechanisms applied to all six other sides.
Remember that the "Top Block" was dropping so the perimeter columns were already missing and they EITHER went inside or outside their corresponding other ends. (Yes - for those paying attention and thinking this through
it is plausible that they could split both ways but that did not happen and wouldn't change the conclusion even if it did.)AND whether inside OR outside the perimeter struck the OOS floors if those floors were still in place ( and those not still in place support my argument against Tony's nonsense)
WHETHER - perimeter moving down onto OOS OR the "reversed polarity" - OOS falling onto perimeter. Same net result. (And a point in passing for Bazantophiles - that reality falsifies any validity for "Crush down - crush up" to apply to WTC Twin towers. It didn't happen. And we return viewers to the advertised program...)
Now if Tony wants to argue that those perimeters could pass through the OOS floor location WITHOUT impacting any floor that was still in place - he can be my guest. I'm subject to limitations of logic which do not apply to "truther logic". He specialises in faith based belief in "magic" - His starting assumption for Missing jolt is "magic' based, I prefer reality and valid engineering physics.
So I note that you once again run away from reasoned argument Tony.
If I was keeping score that is Me at least 20 or 30 and you Zero.
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,947
I'm out of words.... If I were to have to have any criticism about the direction of the debate I'd say it's playing right into the falsehood that there is anything to discuss when the entire premise of this collapse mechanism issue is focused on a series of events that didn't happen because the model on which the case is built on was never made for reality.
Denying the fires got hot enough to weaken the steel is facet of misrepresentation that requires completely twisting the meaning of a reports' findings, but the most egregious misrepresentation is looking down on people's ability to read the very first sentence of an abstract where the intent is specifically marked for everyone to see and has been posted ad nausea and obviously ignored. And this is one of the points that is being called "inane". Somehow pointing out that your entire basis for argument is wrong is "inane". Let that sink in...
The discussion would be completely shut if people were to simply refuse to dive into the nuances of the "MJ" until a clear distinction is admitted on the part of the party involved with overextending its applicability. It's too much time wasted already and too many people that have fallen for the bait, and continue to do so
ETA: I'm not saying that discussing the issue of whether Bazant's work is wrong or not is pointless. But people who want to carry out a serious engineering discussion should at least be able to separate model from reality, and definitely not miss for 14 years something everybody can find in 2 seconds that explains the intent in one sentence.
Denying the fires got hot enough to weaken the steel is facet of misrepresentation that requires completely twisting the meaning of a reports' findings, but the most egregious misrepresentation is looking down on people's ability to read the very first sentence of an abstract where the intent is specifically marked for everyone to see and has been posted ad nausea and obviously ignored. And this is one of the points that is being called "inane". Somehow pointing out that your entire basis for argument is wrong is "inane". Let that sink in...
The discussion would be completely shut if people were to simply refuse to dive into the nuances of the "MJ" until a clear distinction is admitted on the part of the party involved with overextending its applicability. It's too much time wasted already and too many people that have fallen for the bait, and continue to do so
ETA: I'm not saying that discussing the issue of whether Bazant's work is wrong or not is pointless. But people who want to carry out a serious engineering discussion should at least be able to separate model from reality, and definitely not miss for 14 years something everybody can find in 2 seconds that explains the intent in one sentence.
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Fraud is the only reason for refusal to grip reality now!
ozeco41
Philosopher
That has been my consistent theme for about five years - distinguish fantasy from reality EVERY time and avoid "Mix and match". My frustration is not with Tony - his claims require that he dishonestly maintains the confusion/conflation. But for debunkers who still fall for the trap and end up debating situations which are impossible - never happened and never could happen.
I may have "sinned' against your advice Grizzly. Because most times that I once again identify the "reality" v "fantasy" confusion I usually add explanatory reasoning. Explaining is my interest - my natural bias. I'm not all that bothered about what truthers get wrong - they wouldn't be truthers if they were capable of getting it right. I prefer to explain/understand what was right.
Separating "real" from "abstract model" as misused by Szamboti should not be hard BUT those committed to the "Bazant could make no errors" club appear to regard it as too risky to their faith in Bazant to venture near criticising Tony's misuse of Bazant. It does take "pedantic precision paring" of logic but is not all that hard IMO.
Meanwhile - Tony's references to my posts as "inane" or worse is nothing new. I've had his measure since 2010 - I foreshadowed it as far back as Nov 2007. He knows it and rarely if ever dares to attempt to respond with reason to my arguments/explanations. I count the personal attacks/insults as sort of success. And rarely bother responding these days - UNLESS it is to make a point which could be of value to other members.
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,947
The underlying problem is that he is using Bazantian's limit case as the basis for what any "natural collapse" scenario should be - and he has effectively stated as much directly in recent exchanges.
The first page of the paper unambiguously states that this is not the case - that it is a simplified model with an idealistic scenario made to maximize the likelihood of collapse arrest to the utmost extreme.
So if he cannot even be bothered to acknowledge that, then there is no discussion with his points period. He's had this explained for probably over 9 years and the only response I've ever seen to that is that it's an inane point. If this is an engineer saying that, then it is a text book case of why appeals to authority are a fallacy.
If he were to make his argument within the scope of the limit case MODEL properly then all of this discussion has value. For example Bazant's conclusion that there can be no case whatsoever of collapse arrest being incorrect is a valid counterargument. But as long as the model remains a simplified limit case the attempt to draw a direct analogue to the actual event will serve no purpose other than to demonstrate that the person arguing that has no idea how to apply a limit case.
Personally, "the Bazant does no wrong" argument is limited as much by the limit case as Tony's premise. Bazant can be wrong, but with the known limitations of his limit case model the only thing you really draw from that is maybe his conclusions' not so absolutist - that perhaps under very specific circumstances collapse could self arrest. But Tony's clearly not arguing that, and the only purpose "Bazant is always right" serves to do is to provide a podium for that angle to be perpetuated.
I know cutting the discussion there is boring and no fun for people who want to goad him over fraud and what not but really... this is an internet forum... If you're accusing someone of a crime [not referring to you], and it's that serious trolling them back after being accused of shillery is wasting time. I hope some of my peers will forgive me for this opinion.
You've seen me post huge equations in the last couple of weeks explaining the principals ignored in the collapse dynamics by those saying the collapses shoulkd have stopped within 6 floors.... coming after I said I was "burned out" from the CT stuff. I say all of the above but sometimes I should really follow my own advice. The "burnt out" theme is most of the reason why my critiques as of late are so unforgiving
Last edited:
Fonebone
persona non grata
Tony Szamboti > ....there is still a serious problem getting to that point without charges ...
The Ronan Point high-rise DID have an ignition "charge " Glenn.
This information was compiled by
Cynthia Pearson Cleveland State University
Norbert Delatte Cleveland State University, N.DELATTE@csuohio.edu
Ronan Point Apartment Tower Collapse
http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=encee_facpub
[excerpt]
.... The collapse was initiated by a gas-stove leak on the 18th floor in apartment 90. The resident struck a match and was knocked unconscious by the resulting explosion. The force of the explosion knocked out the opposite corner walls of the apartment. These walls were the sole support for the walls directly above. This created a chain reaction in which floor 19 collapsed, then floor 20, and so on, propagating upward. The four floors fell onto level 18, which initiated a second phase of the collapse. This
sudden-impact loading on floor 18 caused it to give way, smashing floor 17 and progressing until it reached the ground. [/excerpt]
An investigation revealed ...
[excerpt]
.... The building was not demolished in the traditional fashion. Instead, Ronan Point was dismantled floor-by floor so that the joints could be studied. The site was an “open site” for anyone interested. A shocked Webb commented: “I knew we were going to find bad workmanship—what surprised me was the sheer scale of it. Not a single joint was correct. Fixing straps were unattached; leveling nuts were not wound down, causing a significant loading to be transmitted via the bolts; panels were placed on bolts instead of mortar. But the biggest shock of all was the crucial H-2 loadbearing joints between floor and wall panels. Some of the joints had less than fifty percent of the mortar specified” ~Wearne 2000!. Wearne ~2000! provides a complete account of Webb’s work investigating Ronan Point. The findings of the poor workmanship in the construction of Ronan Point led to the demolition of the remaining Larsen– Nielson system-built towers. At the time these buildings were erected, the building codes did not adequately address them. Large concrete-panel construction was the height of innovation at this time, and little was known about how it would perform. The
Fig. 3. Interior joint ~based on Wearne @2000#, Bignell @1997#, and Levy and Salvadori @1992#!174
building regulations in effect at the time contained a “catch-all” clause known as the “functional requirement on structure.” This clause contained no mention of redundancy or progressive collapse ~Bignell 1977
[/excerpt]
The answer is contained in the thorough investigation !
The Ronan Point high-rise DID have an ignition "charge " Glenn.
This information was compiled by
Cynthia Pearson Cleveland State University
Norbert Delatte Cleveland State University, N.DELATTE@csuohio.edu
Ronan Point Apartment Tower Collapse
http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=encee_facpub
[excerpt]
.... The collapse was initiated by a gas-stove leak on the 18th floor in apartment 90. The resident struck a match and was knocked unconscious by the resulting explosion. The force of the explosion knocked out the opposite corner walls of the apartment. These walls were the sole support for the walls directly above. This created a chain reaction in which floor 19 collapsed, then floor 20, and so on, propagating upward. The four floors fell onto level 18, which initiated a second phase of the collapse. This
sudden-impact loading on floor 18 caused it to give way, smashing floor 17 and progressing until it reached the ground. [/excerpt]
An investigation revealed ...
[excerpt]
.... The building was not demolished in the traditional fashion. Instead, Ronan Point was dismantled floor-by floor so that the joints could be studied. The site was an “open site” for anyone interested. A shocked Webb commented: “I knew we were going to find bad workmanship—what surprised me was the sheer scale of it. Not a single joint was correct. Fixing straps were unattached; leveling nuts were not wound down, causing a significant loading to be transmitted via the bolts; panels were placed on bolts instead of mortar. But the biggest shock of all was the crucial H-2 loadbearing joints between floor and wall panels. Some of the joints had less than fifty percent of the mortar specified” ~Wearne 2000!. Wearne ~2000! provides a complete account of Webb’s work investigating Ronan Point. The findings of the poor workmanship in the construction of Ronan Point led to the demolition of the remaining Larsen– Nielson system-built towers. At the time these buildings were erected, the building codes did not adequately address them. Large concrete-panel construction was the height of innovation at this time, and little was known about how it would perform. The
Fig. 3. Interior joint ~based on Wearne @2000#, Bignell @1997#, and Levy and Salvadori @1992#!174
building regulations in effect at the time contained a “catch-all” clause known as the “functional requirement on structure.” This clause contained no mention of redundancy or progressive collapse ~Bignell 1977
[/excerpt]
The answer is contained in the thorough investigation !
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Ronan Point:
Was there any large difference in the remains of this structure after collapse, and those of the WTC towers and WTC7, which would allow for different level of investigation?
Was there any large difference in the remains of this structure after collapse, and those of the WTC towers and WTC7, which would allow for different level of investigation?
ozeco41
Philosopher
@Grizzly Bear. Responses inserted << in line
The underlying problem is that he is using Bazantian's limit case as the basis for what any "natural collapse" scenario should be - and he has effectively stated as much directly in recent exchanges. << He has never AFAIK admitted nor shifted off that false premise.
The first page of the paper unambiguously states that this is not the case - that it is a simplified model with an idealistic scenario made to maximize the likelihood of collapse arrest to the utmost extreme. << True. And that is the only aspect relative to this discussion about Tony's foundation error. It is more complicated in the wider discussions because there was historically a lot of confusion on "both sides". Now vociferously denied by several debunkers despite the evidence being in full view in the relevant threads.
So if he cannot even be bothered to acknowledge that, then there is no discussion with his points period. << I don't discuss his points OTHER than when pointing out his foundation error and identifying that his points cannot be argued. Others are not so pedantic and will follow him down his rabbit burrows of evasion/derail. He's had this explained for probably over 9 years << More like 6 - "Missing Jolt" was published 2009 - I first identified what I now know is Tony's SOP trade mark use of false premises in Nov 2007. I've been pointing out the foundation error of MJ since probably early 2010. On numerous occasions explicitly and directly addressed to Tony. He cannot claim ignorance of the advice from me or many others. and the only response I've ever seen to that is that it's an inane point. << If he even acknowledges. If you take pity on his para-religious obsession - he must know it is the keystone of his thinking - he loses the lot if he accepts that he is in error. The whole house of cards tumbles. this is an engineer saying that, then it is a text book case of why appeals to authority are a fallacy. << Yes though more important IMO is that he calls up his authority as an engineer. The downside for him is that taking that stance leaves him open to accusations of professional dishonesty - where the standard of proof is lower than proof of "lying". (Genuine belief in a false obsession is at least a partial defence against the charge of "lying". Not so simple in a professional setting.)
If he were to make his argument within the scope of the limit case MODEL properly then all of this discussion has value. << Except that his claim cannot be supported within that scope BECAUSE the claim is about the real event. For example Bazant's conclusion that there can be no case whatsoever of collapse arrest being incorrect is a valid counterargument. << Correct. And the irony. The Szuladzinski, Szamboti and Johns paper made such a claim - IMO it is prima facie valid and AFAIK has never been falsified with any rigour. I've told Tony I think they - Sz, Sz and J - have a case that warrants an answer. Second irony - if true other bits of Sz, Sz, & J rebut Missing Jolt.
Personally, "the Bazant does no wrong" argument is limited as much by the limit case as Tony's premise. << Actually no - it conflates two areas of discussion which should be separated. . The contention with the Bazantophiles goes to the later papers - not the limit case. Bazant's support of "Crush down - crush up " is simply wrong if applied to WTC Twin Towers. It is based on a 1D approximation and Twin Towers collapses cannot be validly explained in 1D Bazant can be wrong, << May be wrong on the "Limit Case" - the Sz, Sz and J contention that his quantification of mass is wrong. but with the known limitations of his limit case model the only thing you really draw from that is maybe his conclusions' not so absolutist - that perhaps under very specific circumstances collapse could self arrest. << The line taken by Sz, Sz and J --- which BTW is "Model" NOT "Real" so no value in real event. But Tony's clearly not arguing that, << True - he would self rebut if he did - tho that probably wouldn't be admitted.and the only purpose "Bazant is always right" serves to do is to provide a podium for that angle to be perpetuated. << It is a separate issue - where I recently encountered "strong resistance" when I attempted to discuss it rationally. It's on my "back burner".
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
@Grizzly Bear. Responses inserted << in line
Ozeco41 have you ever read the Greening, Benson paper on the collapses?
What did and did not cause the collapse of the twin towers, that paper only states
That Banzant is in agreement for buckling in the first few seconds of the collapse.
Because of heat weakening at the impact Zone.
The rest is caused by floor collapses and impacts, Crush down Crush up, simply refers to
Mass loss, from the top do to ejection of material, and follows a principal of physics.
It is an artifact of designing a computer model, a nessisary simplification.
It appears you might be judging a book by it's cover, I hope I am wrong about that, and that
You have read it.
Fonebone
persona non grata
This qualifies as a "large difference"
http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=encee_facpub
Figure 1 Ronan Point after collapse...
compared to this WTC7 after collapse...
ozeco41
Philosopher
Probably - cannot remember. I've never been in awe of any of those early pioneers and their early attempts to explain things. I've read a lot of the early stuff from that "club" - most of it now outdated and a lot we now know missed the point. Risk of the game for early pioneers. And anything that is still relevant will be within the scope of contemporary explanations - otherwise it wouldn't be still relevant.
Wow. What does it matter that Bazant or any other demi God happens to agree on four bleeding obvious facts:
(1) that things buckled;
(2) in the first few seconds of the collapse mechanism;
(3) because of heat; AND
(4) In the fire and impact zone.
Those are way back at the starting point and add nothing to current discussion with Grizzly which is several steps more advanced than those reflections.
What are you trying to say? More importantly are you disagreeing with something or trying to make another claim?
1 The rest of what?? What are you talking about? How is it relevant to my recent comments?
2 False assertion. your tendency to focus on ONE detail and ignore the rest of the picture.
3 Same error.
4 Truthers misuse lie by innuendo asserting "principles of Physics" please desist or be specific. Otherwise don't patronise - of course - all these matters accord with "principles of physics"
5 Wow! you are still three or four steps behind - we were discussing issues with the modeling.
6 I wasn't even talking about your "Holy Book". And you haven't given any reason why I need to read it.
7 Same answer. Why? What have I got wrong as a result of not reading a paper by two of your heroes?
Last edited: