Gage and Szamboti to speak at New Jersey Institute of Technology

[Tony Szamboti]

ffs. You were earlier saying it should have self-arrested in the absence of charges lower down.

Get your story straight.

It depends on the energy absorption capacity of the columns in the lower structure. If it were a natural collapse initiation the North Tower should have self-arrested after a fall of one or even two stories as its steel columns had a large energy absorption capacity, as we show in the paper "Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis". The Ronan Point concrete panels on the corner did not have the energy absorption capacity required to arrest that partial collapse.

You really shouldn't get so uppity when this question of yours shows you have a low level of sophistication on the subject.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

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 I've read a lot of the early stuff from that "club" - most of it now outdated and a lot we now know missed the point.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?

One I have no Holy Book or Heroes, it just seemed to me, that the (Computer Model) agreed with ROOSD, since I'm trying to determine a starting point for discussion let's end it there, I was discussing the (Computer modeling) that is different from the simplification of the published abstract.

I was trying to establish a starting point for discussion of the (computer model) of the physics, not simply the published abstract was thinking of maybe doing a new more up to date model, but why waste my time, it is clear the Truth movement is a complete fraud.

 

[GlennB]

It depends on the energy absorption capacity of the columns in the lower structure. The North Tower should have self-arrested after a fall of one or even two stories as its columns had a large energy absorption capacity as we show in the paper "Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis". The Ronan Point concrete panels on the corner did not have the energy absorption capacity required to arrest that partial collapse.

You really shouldn't get so uppity when this question of yours shows you have a low level of sophistication on the subject.

Pretty ironic coming from the man who claimed that The Towers had been accelerating at g from the moment they were built.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

It depends on the energy absorption capacity of the columns in the lower structure. The North Tower should have self-arrested after a fall of one or even two stories as its columns had a large energy absorption capacity as we show in the paper "Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis". The Ronan Point concrete panels on the corner did not have the energy absorption capacity required to arrest that partial collapse.

You really shouldn't get so uppity when this question of yours shows you have a low level of sophistication on the subject.

2600 LBS dropped twelve feet is the energy absorbing capacity of the welds on the strongest column. Or 100,000 foot pounds per inch roughly. Given a one foot off center strike.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Pretty ironic coming from the man who claimed that The Towers had been accelerating at g from the moment they were built.

When someone needs to take things out of context you know they have lost the debate.

You and Dave Rogers are both guilty of this here and I have to say you are both acting like cry babies.

The Twin Towers and WTC 7 were taken down via controlled demolition no matter what you want to believe. Get over it and try to do something about it, so we can stop living in La La Land.

 

[Spanx]

When someone needs to take things out of context you know they have lost the debate.

The Twin Towers and WTC 7 were taken down via controlled demolition no matter what you want to believe.

I couldn't agree more

 

[Tony Szamboti]

2600 LBS dropped twelve feet is the energy absorbing capacity of the welds on the strongest column. Or 100,000 foot pounds per inch roughly. Given a one foot off center strike.

The columns were three stories tall and thus the welds were every three stories, so your hypothesis has problems.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The columns were three stories tall and thus the welds were every three stories, so your hypothesis has problems.

No it doesn't the bracing is first to sheer, at the impact zone it also is most effected by the heat of the fires.with out bracing, the columns are free to move. To form into S bends and fracture, dropping the top block.

 

[WilliamSeger]

It depends on the energy absorption capacity of the columns in the lower structure. If it were a natural collapse initiation the North Tower should have self-arrested after a fall of one or even two stories as its steel columns had a large energy absorption capacity, as we show in the paper "Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis".

No, you don't "show" that except by assuming that the first level of columns could absorb 100% of the kinetic energy of a one-story drop -- an assumption that is contradicted the rather obvious fact that the top was still accelerating, e.g. your own claim that the 5.11 m/s/s acceleration you measured means that half the gravitational energy was absorbed.

Which reminds me, you didn't comment on the bogus way you calculated that acceleration from the north face velocity without taking the top block's rotation into account. Fix that error and then we'll see which estimate is closer to reality, your 100% or Bazant's 12%.

 

[ozeco41]

It depends on the energy absorption capacity of the columns in the lower structure.¹ If it were a natural collapse initiation the North Tower should have self-arrested after a fall of one or even two stories as its steel columns had a large energy absorption capacity,¹ as we show in the paper "Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis"¹. The Ronan Point concrete panels on the corner did not have the energy absorption capacity required to arrest that partial collapse.

You really shouldn't get so uppity when this question of yours shows you have a low level of sophistication on the subject.

You seem to be wearing down the opposition Tony. Several members letting you get away with your SOP nonsense. The first two bits easy:
1 That bit only true if the columns were "in the line of resistance". They weren't. So the energy absorption of the columns is not relevant. As you have been made aware many times.
2 Same comment. Plus the reference to "natural collapse initiation" is nonsense seeing as your claims about falling and energy absorption occur after initiation. You do have problems with understanding sequence don't you?

The next is even easier - you reverse the conclusions of your own paper in self rebuttal:
3 Your own paper calls the column crushing mechanism that you are currently describing "PCF" - Progressive Column Failure. And the paper concludes that PCF did not happen.


@Other Members:
To save you the effort of checking - these are the relevant bits from the Sz, Sz and J paper Tony references. First is defines the term "PCF":

The only complete hypothesis of the global collapse mechanism of the Towers is a successive flattening of stories associated with compressive column failure and referred to as a Progressive Column Failure mode or PCF in brief.

..and the paper concludes that PCF did not happen.

8 . S U M M A R Y
....This removes the PCF mode, as defined here, as a viable hypothesis of collapse.

...whilst in current discussions Tony is insisting that it did happen. And calls on the paper despite it saying the opposite.

PLUS - Astute readers will recognise that the conclusion of that paper rebuts the base premise of Tony's "Missing Jolt". "Missing Jolt" is falsely premised on "PCF". But Szuladzinski, Szamboti and Johns say "PCF" did not happen. Go figure - it is the same T Szamboti having a "bet both ways".

 

[JSanderO]

Clearly none of the arguments refuting some of his statements/claims/assumptions seem to enter into Tony's thinking.

The idea of the columns crushing one another is completely absurd... not in this world.

 

[WilliamSeger]

You seem to be wearing down the opposition Tony. Several members letting you get away with your SOP nonsense.

If Tony wants to get into a pee'ing contest with Bazant about how much energy could be absorbed by column buckling, I'll put my money on Bazant, but it really doesn't matter -- that's not what happened after collapse initiation -- but haven't we pummeled that stillborn horse enough?

However, both sides agree that collapse initiation began with columns buckling on at least one floor. But there's a huge disparity in estimates of how much energy was dissipated by that level, and therefore how much was left to do work in the first impacts, regardless of the actual failure modes. I was commenting on Tony's assertion that the collapse should have arrested after only one or two floors, which is based on the paper's assertion that 100% or maybe 75% of the released gravitational potential energy was absorbed. Bazant, of course, says it was negligible in his "simple analysis."

If you were looking for a more interesting (and meaningful) discussion of collapse mechanics, this sure looks like one to me.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

@Grizzly Bear. Responses inserted << in line

*smacks* the inline responses don't get auto-quoted D=
....anyway

He has never AFAIK admitted nor shifted off that false premise.

Regarding references to "admitting".

I.E. "As Bazant claims" or "why Bazant assumed it happened that way". Then... "The problem with the tower is we later found out there was no jolt"

Context, context.... says most of it

Anyway, read your other responses. I haven't much comment on the rest right now. The only matter is if Tony wants to keep believing the stuff, it's his prerogative, but believing in things that are professionally incompetent to follow is to be done at his own peril at this point.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You seem to be wearing down the opposition Tony. Several members letting you get away with your SOP nonsense. The first two bits easy:
1 That bit only true if the columns were "in the line of resistance". They weren't. So the energy absorption of the columns is not relevant. As you have been made aware many times.
2 Same comment. Plus the reference to "natural collapse initiation" is nonsense seeing as your claims about falling and energy absorption occur after initiation. You do have problems with understanding sequence don't you?

The next is even easier - you reverse the conclusions of your own paper in self rebuttal:
3 Your own paper calls the column crushing mechanism that you are currently describing "PCF" - Progressive Column Failure. And the paper concludes that PCF did not happen.


@Other Members:
To save you the effort of checking - these are the relevant bits from the Sz, Sz and J paper Tony references. First is defines the term "PCF":


..and the paper concludes that PCF did not happen.
...whilst in current discussions Tony is insisting that it did happen. And calls on the paper despite it saying the opposite.

PLUS - Astute readers will recognise that the conclusion of that paper rebuts the base premise of Tony's "Missing Jolt". "Missing Jolt" is falsely premised on "PCF". But Szuladzinski, Szamboti and Johns say "PCF" did not happen. Go figure - it is the same T Szamboti having a "bet both ways".

Wow, you are thick headed. PCF did not happen because the structural integrity was removed, which is the only possibility with the inertia involved. Hence, that is the reason there was no jolt.

The notion that the columns somehow moved out of alignment and missed each other is like a little kid fantasy. Inertia of the massive upper section would not allow it.

I have stated both that neither the collapse initiation, or the propagation for at least the first 20 stories or so, were natural.

 

[Spanx]

Clearly none of the arguments refuting some of his statements/claims/assumptions seem to enter into Tony's thinking.

The idea of the columns crushing one another is completely absurd... not in this world.

The way I look at is that Tony has jumped the gun. All of his thinking relies on there being explosives used.

Of course the explosives haven't been proven and he is happy to keep working a long this line of thinking.

If explosives had been proven to be used I think people would look at it with a different view ?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The way I look at is that Tony has jumped the gun. All of his thinking relies on there being explosives used.

Of course the explosives haven't been proven and he is happy to keep working a long this line of thinking.

If explosives had been proven to be used I think people would look at it with a different view ?

How anyone can look at video of the corner of the North Tower and see the rapid focused ejections on both sides, right where the spandrel beam connections to the corner are, and not realize there were charges in the building, is beyond me.

 

[JSanderO]

How anyone can look at video of the corner of the North Tower and see the rapid focused ejections on both sides, right where the spandrel beam connections to the corner are, and not realize there were charges in the building, is beyond me.

Focused? As the top comes down it had to displace the volumn of air equal to the floor area x the distance of vertical drop. That's a lot of air being "pushed out of the way". That air found the weakest place to "escape"... which was the window / glass and so like the air from a bellows it "appears" to be focused... lots of air squeezed through a few small holes.

And it carried with it... all manner of destroyed contents on the floors.... contents the over pressure of the very rapidly moving air had created.

How fast was the escaping (compressed) air moving? That would depend on how are it had to travel and the time it took to reach and blast through the windows. I suspect if it could be measured it would show speeds exceeding tornadoes.

Do you doubt this was taking place?

Let's assume for the moment that there were no explosives... and the floor top dropped 12 in .1 seconds or so. Ignore the columns and their resistance... What would you expect to see?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Focused? As the top comes down it had to displace the volumn of air equal to the floor area x the distance of vertical drop. That's a lot of air being "pushed out of the way". That air found the weakest place to "escape"... which was the window / glass and so like the air from a bellows it "appears" to be focused... lots of air squeezed through a few small holes.

And it carried with it... all manner of destroyed contents on the floors.... contents the over pressure of the very rapidly moving air had created.

How fast was the escaping (compressed) air moving? That would depend on how are it had to travel and the time it took to reach and blast through the windows. I suspect if it could be measured it would show speeds exceeding tornadoes.

Do you doubt this was taking place?

Let's assume for the moment that there were no explosives... and the floor top dropped 12 in .1 seconds or so. Ignore the columns and their resistance... What would you expect to see?

If it was from the upper section it would have been over a wide area. You obviously aren't looking at or talking about the ejections just on the corners that are right where the spandrel connections to the corner are located.

Here is the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8

Another thing that pours cold water on your argument is that the corner is the furthest distance so it would be the last place for compressed air from the collapse to escape.

 

[DGM]

Another thing that pours cold water on your argument is that the corner is the furthest distance so it would be the last place for compressed air from the collapse to escape.

Explain. Was there no air in the corners to begin with?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Explain. Was there no air in the corners to begin with?

The expulsions I am speaking of are obviously not just from air near the corner that is being pushed out from the falling mass.

Did you watch the video? If so, how do you explain the many rapid focused ejections from both sides of the corner and the fact that they occur right where the spandrel beams connect to the corner?