Gage and Szamboti to speak at New Jersey Institute of Technology

[DGM]

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?

Yes I did and this doesn't answer the question I asked. Do you need me to ask again or can you look at the post you responded to?

 

[JSanderO]

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.

There are ejections all across the face of the floor. MOST of the debris is ejected normal the face... and the camera is almost opposite the corner. There are other videos which show the ejections through all windows at one a floor. Of course that would only occur when the entire floor areas was moving down at the same instant... which was not the case for the entire foot print.

If you look closely MOST of the ejections in this video are on the faces NEXT to the corner not AT the corner. LOOK CAREFULLY

You are seeing what you want to see and it's not there and it makes no sense either! How can you distinguish the different causes of the ejecta?

 

[GlennB]

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

Why is it "obvious"?

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?

What's "focused" about them? Undoubtedly other similar ejections across the face are obscured by the falling debris while yet others are visible below the debris line. It's not "squib" time again, surely?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Anyone here who wants to believe that the focused ejections on both sides of the corner of the North Tower, where the spandrel beams connect, are anything but charges, is either deluded or has an agenda.

They are so obviously charges that it is absurd that anyone would say otherwise, and it is unworthy of discussion with one who for some reason insists they somehow aren't.

 

[BasqueArch]

At 5.11 m/s², an object moves 1.25 m in 0.7 s.
The span from NE to SW is 89 meters.
arctan(1.25/89) = 0.8°
If we assume the tilt pivots about the center of mass of the top 12 floors, 6 floors = 22.6 m above the 98th floor which gave way, then the lower column ends would move laterally by


sin(0.8°) * 22.6 m = 0.32 m = 12.5 inches for you USAsians.


Of course I am aware that at that point, not all columns are necessarily severed yet (it's just as the NE corner is about to descend) and so the building can't rotate freely and the pivot wouldn't be where I assume it to be.

Merely illustrating that this little tilt, that corresponds to a 0.7 s delay in horizontal collapse progression, makes for very substantial lateral shifts and forces - has to.


To pretend that essentially all columns could descend any substantial distance strictly vertically is foolish.

Oystein, you’re on the right track. TS has been Whistling Past the Graveyard (WPG) on this.

The pivot point of the top section however was at the base and center of the top section according to Bazant. Bazant explained what caused the lateral motion of the top section and columns:

[FONT=&quot]The pivoting of the upper part must have started by an asymmetric failure of the columns on one side of building, but already at this very small angle the dynamic horizontal reaction at the base of the upper part must have reduced the vertical load capacity of the remaining columns of the critical floor (even if those were not heated[/FONT][FONT=&quot])[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. That must have started the downward motion of the top part of the South Tower, and afterwards its motion must have become predominantly vertical [/FONT][FONT=&quot]([/FONT][FONT=&quot]Fig. 4). [/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You can see a fuller 2D description of this horizontal force at the end of Bazant’s first paper.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Calculating the offset of the upper and lower perimeter columns after the first 12 foot drop:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For time between collapse of southwest corner to northwest corner of 0.7 sec.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For time between collapse of southwest corner to center of top section pivot = 0.35 sec.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For distance southwest corner dropped in 0.7 sec. at .64 FFA = 5.1 feet.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For distance center pivot halfway though initial collapse dropped in 0.35 sec. at .64 FFA = 1.3 feet.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For time it took for southwest corner to drop 12 feet at .64 FFA = 1.08 sec.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For distance the center pivot dropped in 0.73 sec (1.08 -0.35 sec) at .64 FFA = 5.8 feet.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For net distance drop from center pivot to 12 foot perimeter drop = (12-5.8 feet) 6.2 feet[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For distance 103 feet from the tilt pivot and net drop of 6.2 feet the tilt angle at the 12 foot floor to floor drop is 3.4 deg.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For a 3.4 deg. tilt and a 12 foot drop the horizontal displacement = 8.6 inches.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Since the perimeter columns were 14” x 14” x 0.25” (14 sq. inches) , at most at the first story drop the column cross sectional area impacted was 2.7 sq. inches or 19%.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This doesn’t account for the tilt observed in the other direction, or the required simultaneous and axial impact of all the surface column areas required to produce the expected jolt.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]From Bazant’s first paper:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]For our purpose, we may assume that all the impact forces go[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]into the columns and are distributed among them equally. Un-[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]likely though such a distribution may be, it is nevertheless the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot]The tilt at WTC1 produced greater forces to the columns south of the pivot and reduced the forces north of the pivot, at the northwest corner where the jolt measurements were taken. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]W.D.Clinger also proved the existence of mini jolts in TS’ data.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140639&page=38[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5544701#post5544701[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

……………..
How would the lower structure be compromised to the point where it could no longer support the load above it?

There is a big difference between core led vs. perimeter led collapse and it is important to get it right. It isn't very hard, as only core led is possible and it then explains inward bowing and buckling of the perimeter due to its pull-in by the core through the floors.
NIST needs to redo the analysis to show core led collapse and also explain how the horizontal propagation across the entire building could occur in less than a second.

[FONT=&quot]TS still pretends that there is no explanation for the horizontal propagation across the entire building. It’s the asymmetric failure of the columns on one side of the building as explained by Bazant in his link above:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I've said this numerous times:
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]October 2009[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5191721#post5191721[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]May 2010[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5929084#post5929084[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]August 2012[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8525228#post8525228[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]April 2015[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10615877#post10615877[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And so on. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The first time one is wrong it’s a mistake, thereafter when one continues asserting this mistake, it’s a lie. TS has never stopped repeating this no explanation for the "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]horizontal propagation across the entire building" lie.[/FONT]
TS’ MJ hypothesis is wrong. Will this rational evidence convince TS to retract his MJ hypothesis?
Of course not!

 

[JSanderO]

Anyone here who wants to believe that the focused ejections on both sides of the corner of the North Tower, where the spandrel beams connect, are anything but charges, is either deluded or has an agenda.

They are so obviously charges that it is absurd that anyone would say otherwise, and it is unworthy of discussion with one who for some reason insists they somehow aren't.

You're an expert on this too?

 

[funk de fino]

Anyone here who wants to believe that the focused ejections on both sides of the corner of the North Tower, where the spandrel beams connect, are anything but charges, is either deluded or has an agenda.

They are so obviously charges that it is absurd that anyone would say otherwise, and it is unworthy of discussion with one who for some reason insists they somehow aren't.

Anyone who says they saw Silverstein admit blowing up WTC7 on a TV program that has never ever seen the light of day since is what then Tony? A liar or deluded or has an agenda?

 

[funk de fino]

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

Does he really not understand the absurdity of his statement here? It's hilarious.

 

[BasqueArch]

.....The tilt at WTC1 produced greater forces to the columns south of the pivot and reduced the forces north of the pivot, at the northwest corner where the jolt measurements were taken. .....

There is a corollary to the tilt.
The northwest corner where the jolt measurements were taken was rotating up while falling vertically.

 

[ozeco41]

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?

Agreed - except that Tony is also in a peeing contest with reality.

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."

Agreed also however the difference in our preferred focuses emerges again. My primary interest being that he has the mechanism wrong - independent of any reference to Bazant OR energy. I would rarely even bother to come from quantification whether of loads/forces or energy when the mechanism is wrong. And my interest is not in defending Bazant as being right on any matter when the matter is correct stand alone in its own right with or without Bazant's endorsement.

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

Could be - but with Tony driving all the discussion into tit-for-tat repetitions of trivia I don't see anyone engaging in meaningful discussion - and there is nothing I am aware of that is left needing proof.

BTW - that previous post of mine was delayed - started writing before you posted - then got delayed - didn't see yours till after I posted.

 

[Spanx]

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?

What should we be expecting to see where the spandrel beams connect to the corner ?

 

[beachnut]

Anyone here who wants to believe that the focused ejections on both sides of the corner of the North Tower, where the spandrel beams connect, are anything but charges, is either deluded or has an agenda.

They are so obviously charges that it is absurd that anyone would say otherwise, and it is unworthy of discussion with one who for some reason insists they somehow aren't.

And the evidence, is the obvious evidence buried deep in the CD fantasy? Fantasy evidence for fantasy charges. How long have you been seeing charges that are not there? The only charges you have are on master card.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Agreed also however the difference in our preferred focuses emerges again. My primary interest being that he has the mechanism wrong - independent of any reference to Bazant OR energy. I would rarely even bother to come from quantification whether of loads/forces or energy when the mechanism is wrong. And my interest is not in defending Bazant as being right on any matter when the matter is correct stand alone in its own right with or without Bazant's endorsement.

*snip*
Could be - but with Tony driving all the discussion into tit-for-tat repetitions of trivia I don't see anyone engaging in meaningful discussion - and there is nothing I am aware of that is left needing proof.

Well, if Tony could give convincing proof that 75% to 100% of the gravitational energy should have been absorbed in the first level of a "natural" collapse, he wouldn't need his "missing jolt" to prove that something suspicious happened, because clearly that energy was not absorbed.

One other thing that struck me as dubious about the analysis is that it assumes the collapse began when the total capacity of the columns fell to less than the total weight of the top block. I don't believe that's necessary for a progressive collapse; in fact, I'd say that the reason it was progressive instead of simultaneous is because that wasn't true.

 

[ozeco41]

Well, if Tony could give convincing proof that 75% to 100% of the gravitational energy should have been absorbed in the first level of a "natural" collapse, he wouldn't need his "missing jolt" to prove that something suspicious happened, because clearly that energy was not absorbed.

So true. That reality also serving to illustrate that there are many perspectives which can be taken - many alternate approaches - all of which in various ways are fatal to "Missing Jolt". Ranging from my qualitative reasoning as to why the mechanism is wrong across the spectrum to the detailed measurement style approaches preferred by several members.

One other thing that struck me as dubious about the analysis is that it assumes the collapse began when the total capacity of the columns fell to less than the total weight of the top block. I don't believe that's necessary for a progressive collapse; in fact, I'd say that the reason it was progressive instead of simultaneous is because that wasn't true.

Probably true IMO - I've deliberately glossed over that aspect for reasons of simplicity of explanation. "Not enough surviving capacity" is IMO near enough but it is essentially a static explanation - the dynamic reality would be slightly different - but the difference IMO second order so I've felt justified using the "Static" or "first order" approach. On the rationalisation that once anyone understood the first order process they would/could accept that the second order dynamic effects don't significantly change the reasoning - despite introducing some complicated conceptual issues.

 

[GlennB]

Does he really not understand the absurdity of his statement here? It's hilarious.

I think he finds it remarkable that the expulsions only come from around the corner of the building. Fact is, we can't see much else *but* the corner, as the video starts after collapse inititation.

I can't find the original that includes initiation. Anyone help? Tony? Tony? Surely the video isn't cropped to suit Chandler's argument? I'd find that hard to believe.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

We're not crying, Tony. We're laughing.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

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".

I think it's more radical than that. Let's analyse what Tony has actually said:

P1: There is no hypothesis other than PCF that can explain a collapse caused by fire and impact damage.
P2: The PCF hypothesis cannot explain a collapse caused by fire and impact damage.
C: There is no hypothesis that can explain a collapse caused by fire and impact damage.

Or, to rephrase the conclusion: It is not possible for a building to collapse due to fire and impact damage, however severe.

We may therefore consider Tony Szamboti's arguments to have been subjected to reductio ad absurdam, and thus conclusively refuted.

Dave

 

[WilliamSeger]

Or, to rephrase the conclusion: It is not possible for a building to collapse due to fire and impact damage, however severe.

We may therefore consider Tony Szamboti's arguments to have been subjected to reductio ad absurdam, and thus conclusively refuted.

Dave

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I think it's more radical than that. Let's analyse what Tony has actually said:

P1: There is no hypothesis other than PCF that can explain a collapse caused by fire and impact damage.
P2: The PCF hypothesis cannot explain a collapse caused by fire and impact damage.
C: There is no hypothesis that can explain a collapse caused by fire and impact damage.

Or, to rephrase the conclusion: It is not possible for a building to collapse due to fire and impact damage, however severe.

We may therefore consider Tony Szamboti's arguments to have been subjected to reductio ad absurdam, and thus conclusively refuted.

Dave

Need to resort to word twisting again don't you Dave? Unbelievable.

Your point of view (that the collapse of the North Tower was due to natural circumstances by fire and impact damage) has been shown to be impossible and obviously can't be argued fairly, so you resort to taking things out of context in an indescribable way. Like I said, this is the sign of a cry baby and sore loser. With your unjustified cockiness it isn't surprising that you might be inclined to respond this way. You really should look to change your demeanor, as in the end it will just make you a big loser.

The energy calculations show the columns were not involved in the collapse and that is impossible in a natural collapse, due to the inertia. The only way it could happen is for the columns to be removed artificially. It is also why there was no jolt. Fire and impact damage could not have removed the columns in an even way to accomplish the feat and no calculations have ever been produced showing they could. This is why claiming they could is the actual absurdity.

 

[Oystein]

...the columns were not involved in the collapse and that is impossible due to the inertia unless the columns were being removed artificially...

You keep saying that. You imply that the columns could not have moved laterally even by an inch until such time as you expect a jolt, right? Well, that isn't true.

If Columns failed at one corner 0.7 s earlier than at the opposite corner, as YOU claim, you get rotation. That implies angular momentum.
You cannot have angular momentum without some part of the assembly having lateral momentum as a matter of practical possibility. There went your "inertia", in the first few 1/10ths of a second.

(This in addition to the bleeding obvious: That each buckling column individually can and does experience lateral forces the moment it bows, which it does before it buckles; so even if the CoM of the entire top, or the base level, or whatever doesn't move laterally on account of inertia, all the individual columns can, and many most assuredly do)