• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gage and Szamboti to speak at New Jersey Institute of Technology

Oystein said:
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)
Click to expand...

The small amount of angular momentum observed in the North Tower upper section is not sufficient to cause the columns to miss or prevent a jolt in a natural collapse and it is certain that you won't be able to substantiate your claims about it.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
The small amount of angular momentum observed in the North Tower upper section is not sufficient to cause the columns to miss or prevent a jolt.
Click to expand...

Strange - I did a calculation and found it does suffice
BasqueArch did a calculation and found it does suffice
Why didn't you address the posts detailing the calculations? We must have done something terribly wrong!

Can you describe the body that had this angular momentum? Wouldn't that be "the entire top of the tower above the collapse initiation level"?
What was its pivot? It's base center, as Bazant claims (according to BasqueArch - I didn't check), or the top's Center of Gravity, as I assumed?
 
DGM said:
Do you always substantiate yours on opinion alone?

I know, never question, you're an engineer. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I have done calculations and been involved in writing papers on the subject which show the buildings had to be taken down via controlled demolition. So, yes I show my work, unlike those here who still want to believe the collapses were due to natural circumstances without a basis for that belief.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
Strange - I did a calculation and found it does suffice
BasqueArch did a calculation and found it does suffice
Why didn't you address the posts detailing the calculations? We must have done something terribly wrong!

Can you describe the body that had this angular momentum? Wouldn't that be "the entire top of the tower above the collapse initiation level"?
What was its pivot? It's base center, as Bazant claims (according to BasqueArch - I didn't check), or the top's Center of Gravity, as I assumed?
Click to expand...

Neither you or anyone else on this forum has ever done a calculation showing the jolt would somehow be obviated in a natural collapse.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I have done calculations and a significant amount of it on this subject has been shown in papers... So, yes I show my work, unlike those here who...
Click to expand...
...have read the first paragraph of a paper and found that all the work was focused in the wrong direction...
 
Rotation was about a pivot on the tower until collapse began at which time the pivot is obviously destroyed. Conservation of angular momentum dictates that it then rotated about its CoG.

Complicating matters though, as it rotated on a pivot line, that would greatly increase loading along that line of columns. That would increase the likelihood that those columns fail, moving the pivot back.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I have done calculations and been involved in writing papers on the subject. So, yes I show my work, unlike those here who still want to believe the collapses were due to natural circumstances without a basis for that belief.
Click to expand...
Yet when questioned on your "calculations" you always run or resort to diversion.

Your MO is well documented here.
 
DGM said:
Yet when questioned on your "calculations" you always run or resort to diversion.

Your MO is well documented here.
Click to expand...

When you actually have something to say with some basis to it let me know. I have never seen you do so.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
When you actually have something to say with some basis to it let me know. I have never seen you do so.
Click to expand...
You ignore my true statement that you believe the tower sections were two pristine blocks suddenly dropped through air (in a "natural collapse).

Do you deny this?
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Neither you or anyone else on this forum has ever done a calculation showing the jolt would somehow be obviated in a natural collapse.
Click to expand...

Whooooops! Tony!! Move that Goal Post right back to where you snatched it from!!

This was such an obvious Goal Post move that I tentatively consider it to have been malevolently dishonest. Try again, and this time try to be honest:

You claim that, because of inertia, the column ends could not have moved laterally; and also that the tilt of the tops also was insufficient to rotate the column ends laterally by more than the inch (+/-) to frustrate column alignment at significant resistance.

Strange - I did a calculation and found the tilt even of WTC1 does suffice
BasqueArch did a calculation and found it does suffice
Why didn't you address the posts detailing the calculations? We must have done something terribly wrong!

Can you describe the body that had this angular momentum? Wouldn't that be "the entire top of the tower above the collapse initiation level"?
What was its pivot? It's base center, as Bazant claims (according to BasqueArch - I didn't check), or the top's Center of Gravity, as I assumed?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
When you actually have something to say with some basis to it let me know. I have never seen you do so.
Click to expand...
I'll give you a chance to show everyone your stuff. Where are your calculations that show the corner "expulsions" could only be explosive charges? This is your claim, prove it!
 
jaydeehess said:
Rotation was about a pivot on the tower until collapse began at which time the pivot is obviously destroyed. Conservation of angular momentum dictates that it then rotated about its CoG.
...
Click to expand...

IF the top pivots about a point at or near its base, not its CoG, THEN that means the CoG moves laterally.
This means there was a force accelrateing the top laterally.
This lateral force must at some level have been communicated through columns.
Tony would have to explain why this lateral force can't misalign the column ends.

IF the top pivots about it CoG, THEN EITHER the base of the top moves laterally, OR the entire structure of the top deforms in complicated ways.
Tony would have to explain why this entire deformation in 3D of the top can't misalign the column ends.
 
DGM said:
You ignore my true statement that you believe the tower sections were two pristine blocks suddenly dropped through air (in a "natural collapse).

Do you deny this?
Click to expand...

I never said that. I have said the columns would need to buckle in a natural collapse scenario.

You are a word twister also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom