Tony harasses Bazant

Tony Szamboti said:
What pulled the exterior columns in to start with? Hint: NIST found out it couldn't be the floor weight due to sagging.
Click to expand...
Redistribution of load with a small amount of truss pull in. Yes, there is no reason to believe the truss sag did all the work.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Redistribution of load with a small amount of truss pull in.
Click to expand...

No, that wasn't what caused it according to NIST. The load on the south wall where they say it started was no different than it ever was and sagging trusses couldn't pull the exterior columns inward in their model.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Quote the reference.
Click to expand...

Read the NIST report and it will tell you what they had to do. They could not get the exterior columns to bow inward so they applied a 5,000 lb. artificial lateral load to each exterior column of the south wall.

This means they don't say what caused it.

It really is obvious though. It was the core dropping and pulling the exterior columns inward through the floors. The dropping antenna shows the core went down before the exterior.
 
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti
Second, the 6g impulse (jolt) required to cause buckling would produce a velocity loss of 17.38 ft./second, which would require about 844 milliseconds to recover at the 0.64g acceleration it was falling at. This would be about 25 frames. Measuring every 5th frame, as we did, would give at least 4 measurements which would show reduced velocity. None is ever observed in the measurements.
Click to expand...

TubbaBlubba said:
"Impulse" is not the same thing as jolt. Impulse is the total (vector) change in momentum due to the integral of an acceleration (i.e. over time or using a delta function for instantaneous acceleration). "Jolt" is the derivative of acceleration, as from a sudden brake. If you brake a car from 90 mph to 0 mph, you get the same impulse no matter what, but a high jolt if you brake it quickly, and a low jolt if you brake it slowly.

A high jolt, or jerk, is typically what causes people to stumble on a tram (the acceleration itself is rarely high enough and is typically constant for a while, but it may very suddenly goes from zero to a few mph).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I was just about to say that. :D But remember, you're dealing with a fellow who claimed that objects at rest are being accelerated at g towards the earth.
 
Redwood said:
I was just about to say that. :D But remember, you're dealing with a fellow who claimed that objects at rest are being accelerated at g towards the earth.
Click to expand...

Can you tell me what the equation for static load force of

F = mg

means?
 
Lets forget about the North Tower. Give you expert analysis for the South. Don't like that because no fancy math can save it. No charges needed right?
 
DGM said:
Lets forget about the North Tower. Give you expert analysis for the South. Don't like that because no fancy math can save it. No charges needed right?
Click to expand...

I kind of prefer looking at the North Tower. Its descent is measurable and more can be observed.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
What pulled the exterior columns in to start with? Hint: NIST found out it couldn't be the floor weight due to sagging.
Click to expand...

In one of the "Structures In Fire" Conference there are over twentysomething references to catenary horizontal forces that pull in columns. The same forces you deny in the WTC.

The unrestrained girder that expands and gets trapped in WTC7 buckles, twists,deforms. You say it only deflects 2-3" and remains trapped without buckling. This is wrong.

Bazant describes the sequential column failure of the towers due to the moment generated by the rotating top portion. You don't know this.

Your knowledge of structural mechanics and structures in fire is inferior.
 
rwguinn said:
Now that's confusing as hell.
Impulse is dimensionally (Force)*(time), eg, N*s, lbf*sec, etc. An impulse of 10 N*sec may be the result of 100 N acting over 1/10 second, or 1/(106)N acting over 107sec, or any combination that works out to 10
You have to multiply a very large number by 0 to get 10...
Click to expand...
Game physics engines use a time step dt which is a small but nonzero number. The smaller the number, the more accurate the simulation is. That's what causes the big spike in the Box2D simulation I wrote; it gets arbitrarily large as I reduce the timestep, because the impulse lasts for 1 simulation tick (which in turn lasts dt seconds).

SlabFall-complete.gif
 
DGM said:
And the fact even you can't play with Bazants numbers enough to prevent global collapse? Don't feel bad, no one has.
Click to expand...

He over estimated kinetic energy by about 3.4 times and underestimated column energy dissipation capacity by about 3.4 times.

If you do the math you will see that the collapse likely arrests, and at the very least a significant pronounced and very observable deceleration would occur.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
He over estimated kinetic energy by about 3.4 times and underestimated column energy dissipation capacity by about 3.4 times.

If you do the math you will see that the collapse likely arrests, and at the very least a significant pronounced and very observable deceleration would occur.
Click to expand...

WTC1,2 NIST simply calculated the failure of the truss connections from the weight of the falling mass above. The failure of the truss connections was verified from the debris.
The collapses were due to failure by simultaneous multifloor fires and damage, not CD.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
My units are straight. I determined the force required to buckle the columns and then determined deceleration (g's) required from the impact (or shock load) using the impacting mass.

The term jolt was misapplied by Z. Bazant. Take it up with him. He has several more pressing errors to fix, so this little nit should really be let go. I understand it is all many have here as they are being shown that there are problems with the present official explanation, so in a vain attempt to save face they are willing to pick on an insignificant nit.
Click to expand...

Your entire raison d'etre is an insignificant nit. I know it must suck and all, but that's the truth.

Nothing you have ever written changes one iota any conclusion of the reality that is 19 Terrorists + 4 planes = 9/11.

Jolt, no jolt, who gives a crap? Seriously? What possible meaning could there be? The very first thing you need to come to grips with is that nothing could have survived the impact of those aircraft, LET ALONE explosives of any kind. That's absolutely INSANE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom