Gage and Szamboti to speak at New Jersey Institute of Technology

[JSanderO]

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

You are a word twister also.

Only SOME of them would have had to buckle... Others could have been pushed out of alignment... rendering them incapable of carrying loads.

The column to column end joints were NOT restrained at could displace more easily that had the been restrained. It wouldn't take much lateral movement to cause the connection to fail... in many cases as little as an inch.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Only SOME of them would have had to buckle... Others could have been pushed out of alignment... rendering them incapable of carrying loads.

The column to column end joints were NOT restrained at could displace more easily that had the been restrained. It wouldn't take much lateral movement to cause the connection to fail... in many cases as little as an inch.

Jeffrey, you have no basis for what you are saying here. I am sure you can't even begin to explain in a rational logical way how columns would have been pushed out of alignment in the first two stories of the collapse.

There should have been a serious jolt in a natural collapse after the first story drop.

The columns weren't even involved because the core was being removed and the exterior had its corners cut. That is why there was no jolt.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Jeffrey, you have no basis for what you are saying here. I am sure you can't even begin to explain in a rational logical way how columns would have been pushed out of alignment in the first two stories of the collapse.

There should have been a serious jolt in a natural collapse after the first story drop.

The columns weren't even involved because the core was being removed and the exterior had its corners cut. That is why there was no jolt.

Columns fail as s curve bends, others are fractured as they are over loaded and off set!
When I read the missing Jolt I had an Image of Wile E Coyote, super Genius, as an engineer,although I hope that is not an Insult to Wile E.

 

[DGM]

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 did not say that you believe the Bazant model represented reality?

Care to think about your reply?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You did not say that you believe the Bazant model represented reality?

Care to think about your reply?

In his natural collapse scenario in his papers Zdenek Bazant claims the columns buckled to initiate the collapse in the North Tower, but that they offered negligible resistance. He then used that basis to allow the use of free fall acceleration through the first story.

You seem to have gotten confused by the term "vanishing story", which was used to ridicule his use of free fall acceleration through the first story buckling columns by claiming their resistance was nil.

 

[DGM]

In his natural collapse scenario in his papers Zdenek Bazant claims the columns buckled to initiate the collapse in the North Tower,

Why do you feel the need to lie. He states the limit to his model. You are the only one that views it as reality. Actually, you need it to be, it's the only way to support your fantasy. Without a "freefall" of one pristine structure through one story to a pristine structure your "missing jolt" couldn't happen.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Why do you feel the need to lie. He states the limit to his model. You are the only one that views it as reality. Actually, you need it to be, it's the only way to support your fantasy. Without a "freefall" through one story to a pristine structure your "missing jolt" couldn't happen.

I'm not lying and the Missing Jolt issue is not dependent on free fall through the first story. It has the same bearing on the situation if the acceleration through the first story is 2/3rds of g. That is because it is after the first story drop at the impact with structure below that it has import.

The problem here is clearly that you are just making a desperate attempt to refute me in any way you can but all you have are bogus and meaningless arguments. Go away.

 

[DGM]

Your arguments are bogus and meaningless. Go away.

I bet you say that to everyone.........................Would explain how you got as far as you have. Tell us again why you are arguing here instead of in major journals?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I bet you say that to everyone.........................Would explain how you got as far as you have. Tell us again why you are arguing here instead of in major journals?

You are a disingenuous person. That much is clear and it doesn't make sense to even engage you in a discussion.

I come here on occasion to shed a little light on things and ensure people like you can't keep honest people in the dark.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Your arguments are bogus and meaningless.

Whose argument are we speaking of? DGM merely cited something that's on the first page [and first paragraph] of the paper you're basing all of your criticism on, and you're denying something anybody can look up with a cursory google search [and of which, direct excerpts have been posted]. Is it that unreasonable to point this out? Or are we going to continue pretending the disclaimer doesn't exist? You're going to continue pretending that Bazant never unambiguously stated the limits of his limit case?

Or, are you arguing that modeling, intent, and scope are meaningless terms?

Because what Bazant assumes in his models are entirely unrelated to the observed collapses, yet you seem to think in spite of everything he prefaces his model with it was supposed to be related.

 

[DGM]

You are a disingenuous person.

So why do you post here for all us disingenuous people. Could it be because were the only ones left listening?

 

[DGM]

Whose argument are we speaking of? DGM merely cited something that's on the first page [and first paragraph] of the paper you're basing all of your criticism on, and you're denying something anybody can look up with a cursory google search [and of which, direct excerpts have been posted]. Is it that unreasonable to point this out? Or are we going to continue pretending the disclaimer doesn't exist? You're going to continue pretending that Bazant never unambiguously stated the limits of his limit case?

Or, are you arguing that modeling, intent, and scope are meaningless terms?

Because what Bazant assumes in his models are entirely unrelated to the observed collapses.

Notice his edit?

It went from what we both quoted to this:

I'm not lying and the Missing Jolt issue is not dependent on free fall through the first story. It has the same bearing on the situation if the acceleration through the first story is 2/3rds of g. That is because it is after the first story drop at the impact with structure below that it has import.

The problem here is clearly that you are just making a desperate attempt to refute me in any way you can but all you have are bogus and meaningless arguments. Go away.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

So why do you post here for all us disingenuous people. Could it be because were the only ones left listening?

Speak for yourself, I am not Listening, I am laughing.

 

[DGM]

Speak for yourself, I am not Listening, I am laughing.

You need to listen in order to know when to laugh.............

Most of the times I just shake my head in disbelief.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Notice his edit?

It went from what we both quoted to this:

I saw that. He can edit as much as he wants, I don't care. It's still shenanigans for him to believe he can simply dismiss off-hand something so brazenly and then accuse critics of being disingenuous. This is elementary research and until he gets that issue straightened out he deserves to be called on it before any further debate on the matter progresses. I anticipate he will continue to dismiss it or evade it, but that's his prerogative if he wants to continue thinking people are too bothered to search something that's so easy to find, but the quote can simply be plastered again:

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
Abstract: This paper presents a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of the towers of World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001. [...] The structural resistance is found to be an order of magnitude less than necessary for survival, even though the most optimistic simplifying assumptions are introduced.

It's nearly impossible to miss.

 

[Fonebone]

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!

WTC1 FIREBALL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnuFACYc-Q4

Note that the fireball that initiated the collapse cover four stories
and neutralized exterior columns equally on all four faces of the north tower as tony states in post #544
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11002153#post11002153

 

[DGM]

WTC1 FIREBALL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnuFACYc-Q4

Note that the fireball that initiated the collapse cover four stories
and neutralized exterior columns equally on all four faces of the north tower as tony states in post #544
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11002153#post11002153



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/363814d076c6bf2b51.gif[/qimg]

Note the shift in the antenna position, Do you still want to pretend the top "block" was not rotating?

I love it when you guys "debunk" but dig the hole even deeper.

 

[Oystein]

Tony ignores me - that means I must be on to something.
Tony, BA and I did no do any calculation for "jolt or no jolt" because your premise for such a calculation - column alignment - is FALSE. That's what our calculations show.

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?

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

The sharp-eyed will note that Tony makes no attempt to address the fact that (a) he has said that he knows of no possible way for a "natural" collapse to occur without a jolt and that (b) he has published a paper in which he states that the model which predicts a jolt is physically impossible, far less that these result in the absurd conclusion that no building can possibly collapse without the use of explosives. What he is doing here is a variant on reversal of the burden of proof combined with the strawman fallacy; having been caught in an impossible contradiction, he tries to divert attention from it by inventing a counter-argument and then demanding proof for it. There's a touch of well poisoning too, as he's including the usual personal abuse.

Classy stuff, as usual.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

So why do you post here for all us disingenuous people. Could it be because were the only ones left listening?

You've got to wonder, haven't you, why he still posts here? He's never convinced anyone he was right - even he and the other truthers here only pretend to agree with each other to present a united front - he gets nothing but risicule from the rest of us, and he doesn't even have anything new to say. Simple attention seeking is the only reason I can think of.

Dave